How to write a review. How to write a review for a thesis The concept of a review

You will learn what a review is and how to write one. There will be many useful tips and rules that the best reviewers adhere to. Also, for clarity, we will analyze a few examples.

Review (recensio - review or evaluation) is the analysis and evaluation of a new artistic, scientific or popular science work.

Firstly, this meaning of the word refers specifically to new works.

Very often there is a temptation to write material for a film forty years ago. It is clear that the author here will not be able to say something new. He also will not be able to influence the choice of readers. After all, this is a classic that has stood the test of time.

Therefore, do not confuse this with school essays!

Secondly, there is a definition for scientific and popular science works. But as journalists, you will often encounter fiction. These are books, films, performances and so on.

But do not forget that we also have the Internet!

Here you have to write reviews for various online services, programs or courses. This is already a kind of web journalism.

When evaluating the events of cultural life, remember that the task becomes doubly difficult. We evaluate not just an event, but a reality reflected by someone.

That is, the artist reflects reality or the world invented by him. In any case, it will be his perception.

We do not evaluate the event or the world as much as we did in . And we evaluate how it reflects reality. I mean, that's another issue.

Genre features

Here are the highlights of the review:

• The author educates the reader, and the critic educates the author
• Makes art processes better
• Teaches a journalist to think, reason, cut off unnecessary
• Saves viewer time
• Helps the viewer navigate

We often associate reviews with criticism. And sometimes with criticism. Basically, there are two positions.

The first is the position of a person who created everything himself. He usually doesn't like critics. Perhaps you have already experienced it yourself.

So you tried, wrote, created and did not sleep at night. You spent all your time on . So you published it, and now they began to criticize you.

Who usually?

People who were having fun while you were working. They don't know how to do what you do. However, they are critical. In general, this is one position when you are the author.

another position when you are a critic. Here it is easy to slip into criticizing everything and everyone. This is a fairly common character trait.

We believe that this director made the film for us. We are spectators. So we have the right to estimates.

Therefore, when we see shortcomings, we immediately begin to criticize. Sometimes we do it gracefully enough. And the more gracefully we do, the more we like it.

Moreover, the same person easily jumps from one position to another!

You can treat critics badly when you are the author of the material itself. But when you come to the cinema, you begin to criticize the film with pleasure. And maybe even write a review.

Where is this balance and why are these reviews needed then? Maybe in general, you don’t need to get into this analytical genre of journalism and never criticize?

He makes some artistic processes better. Makes authors carefully treat their works. He forces them somewhere to change their point of view. Something to think about and somewhere to become better.

If critics perceived all the works exclusively joyfully and healthy, then this would not stimulate the authors to improve.

But instead you got feedback: " Wow! Great! Write more».

This answer will obviously not suit you. After all, it is clear that it turned out well.

Instead, I would like to discuss this topic. I want the reader to ask a question or argue with you. And even if he praised you, then for what specifically. Therefore, all these banal reviews are not interesting.

Yes, they get offended and argue. But it is better than empty and spontaneous words.

Another question is that any word spoken by someone incomprehensible can be detrimental to the author. Then the person is offended, stops writing and withdraws into himself. Or is he trying to go along with all the critics.

For example, the slightest remark about the plot was made to him, and the author changes the plot. They make a remark to the director on the selection of actors. As a result, he changes actors.

That's bad!

Never be led by others. Have your own opinion. Listen! But always understand that a review is also written by a person. He may not be more professional than you. But even if he is smarter, you, as a creator, have the right to your own opinion and view.

It's about the attitude to criticism. But in this case, we will act as critics ( reviewers).

Why do we need it?

This teaches us to think, reason, see the meaning of the work and cut off the excess. And first of all, emotions will be superfluous.

How is a review different from a review?

There will be many emotions. Type: " It's great! Great! I was brought to tears».

There is little emotion in the review. Here we evaluate the material in the context of already created works from a given genre, topic or author. Here we will already think and reason logically.

Reviews train us very well and hone our writing skills. Of the well-known journalists, Alexander Nevzorov and Dunya Smirnova do it very beautifully. Let's take a look at her work below.

Without turning to personalities and rudeness, exceptionally intelligent, this is what you should strive for! Even if you never write reviews, it will come in handy in other genres as well.

In addition, the review saves the viewer's time.

She helps him orient himself. Hundreds of books and dozens of films are released every day. Naturally, readers and viewers are looking for some kind of landmarks. First of all, they are looking for reviews.

Therefore, on the most popular sites about cinema and literature, you will always find a section of reviews and criticism ( reviews). There they are often confused.

No difference!

Who is a reviewer

Reviewer is the reviewer of the work. He is an expert in the field in which he writes. Can easily evaluate material in the context of genre or author. Moves away from emotional assessments. Reveals the main questions what is it all about and what the author wanted to say).

Professional reviewers know their field very well. Therefore, there are no know-it-all critics. Each specializes in one particular topic.

There is a film critic, literary or music critic.

In addition, they also specialize in genres ( subtopics). Someone well versed in French cinema. It will already be a narrow specialist. He climbs into this area and reviews the works that are created there.

Some specialize in pop music from the 1950s to 1970s. In general, they are interested in the Soviet stage of those years.

These are the people who review books that come out about pop artists of those years. They can write monographs on the subject. They can also act as the author of their several books.

Of course, there is no point in reviewing the albums of those years. But nevertheless, such people can be engaged in this particular industry and period. In this subtopic they are specialists.

Such critics can give very interesting assessments!

Of course, these are already quite narrow areas. But it is enough just to be interested, for example, in modern author's cinema.

Now we are unlikely to be able to become such narrow specialists. Therefore, when you practice, I recommend reviewing works in an interesting and beloved genre. That way you'll know at least something. After all, you have repeatedly got acquainted with the works of your favorite genre.

If you like comedies or fantasy, then most likely you have already reviewed a lot of films and books of this genre.

That is, we have an expert, this is a good critic. It evaluates works in the context of genre, works or author.

For example, JK Rowling has written a new book.

It's not fantasy and it's not about wizards. But still, expert reviewers try to compare it to Harry Potter.

They try to evaluate in the context of what Rowling has already written. Sometimes it's interesting because it allows you to see the evolution of the author.

They can also evaluate in the context of the topic.

That is, what has already been filmed on the topic. For example, in the love of a young girl for an old man. Here they will already compare the modern work with Nabokov's Lolita.

When there is evaluation in context, then it becomes interesting.

Is it easy or difficult to write a review?

We have been taught that it is easy. At school, you probably wrote reviews. Sometimes essays on the theme of great works.

It’s very funny when schoolchildren in grades 7-8 are forced to evaluate “ War and peace". Or evaluate and write an essay, which, as a rule, is written according to the laws of reviews, on Eugene Onegin.

Therefore, some may have some kind of illusion. It may seem like it's easy. After all, we wrote such reviews at school. Why don't we write now?

Actually, it's not that easy!

The main question you should be asking when writing is: Why all this? Why was this work created? What did the author mean by this?»

These will be the main questions of your review that you need to disclose.

Be sure to move away from emotional assessments. Should not be in a review: I liked it and I cried with happiness!»

And never apologize to the reader. This is a very common mistake in reviews. It is usually allowed by good and kind people, as well as intelligent and modest people.

It also sounds very often in the text:

• in my opinion
• I think
• in my opinion
• I think and so on

This is all verbal garbage and curtsy to the reader!

It's clear that you're expressing your opinion. No need for these extra words that show your uncertainty and suggest a discussion. You seem to be saying that your opinion is not the only one and this is only your opinion.

But this is so clear!

If you sat down to write a review, then you express your point of view. Therefore, do not bow to the reader. You don't need to do this! This makes the text heavier and does not give it anything good.

The review involves controversy.

They say that tastes do not argue. But this is exactly the situation when you express your point of view. But most likely it will generate controversy.

How to write a review

We continue to talk about how to write a review of a film, a book, a scientific article, a thesis, and so on.

This time, let's talk about the review plan. How it all looks and what it consists of. I will say right away that this is not a clear scheme that you need to follow.

You build the review the way you see fit. These are just the questions you need to ask yourself and then answer. That is, in what order they will be and how, it is your decision. These are just basic questions.

How to write a review

So the first question is What did the author want to say with this work and why did he create it? Here we will talk about the plot and theme. How interesting and relevant is this topic.

Just on the diagram, this is the last question. Why is this topic taken now? What is the author talking about? What is the main idea of ​​his work?

Here are the main questions.

The second question is how he said it.

Let's take Harry Potter for example. What is the main idea of ​​this book? This is not a way to entertain the reader. Although this too. But even such a light children's book has its own main idea.

The main idea is the classic struggle between good and evil. It's obvious! But nevertheless, this is a story about the loneliness of a child with great responsibility.

If you take additional storylines, it will also be about love, devotion and friendship.

But first of all, this is the story of a small person who turns into a big hero and bears a huge responsibility. This is an eternal theme! Millions of works have been written on it.

What means of expression does the author use?

From the example, we took a very large work of several books. You can write a separate review for each. But in general, we are talking about the special language of the writer, about the composition of the work.

If we take the film, then we will talk about some external ways of expressiveness. About music, about the picture, about the work of cameramen, about costumes, artists and so on. And it is not necessary that all this should be present in your criticism.

Of course not!

But through what and in what way did the author resort to expressing his ideas? This is what needs to be specified.

The next question we ask ourselves is: Did the author manage to say what he wanted?»

“Succeeded” - these will already be your emotions. What did you take away from the film? With what thoughts and emotions did you leave after the work? This is the little piece where you can talk about emotions.

In the review, your reasoning on the topic and problem is also acceptable. How relevant is it? What do you think about this? What works have already dealt with this problem?

We remember that we are considering in context or what the author himself has already said before. For some authors, the same theme runs through all their work. Here a person has rested on one topic and does not write about anything else.

For example, take Maria Semenova.

Her books are a series about Wolfhound, Valkyrie and so on. These will always be stories of devotion. That is, the main motive of her work is devotion and loyalty.

This is also an eternal theme!

And if we consider the book Valkyrie, which comes out of the general series about the Wolfhound, then we can compare it with other books by Semenova. Why, having a hyped series and a hero, she suddenly goes into women's prose with a different thought.

Now that's interesting!

This is what the reader needs! A reader who has already read many books about the Wolfhound and needs to be interested in a book about the Valkyrie.

Review examples

Below we will consider some examples of reviews. There will be both successful and unsuccessful options.

It should be said right away that the film search site is very well suited as a resource with examples. However, the materials here are very different. Here are not only reviews, but reviews and school essays from the series “ I cried with happiness».

How to select here?

First, you already know the criteria for good reviews. Secondly, there is a hint here. Under each material there is a line of usefulness.

Usefulness of a review

Ratings are left by ordinary users who choose whether they will watch a given film based on a review or not. This is the performance criteria. Was the criticism helpful to the reader?

Of course, those works that scored the maximum "Yes" deserve attention. If there are a lot of “No” or no ratings at all, then this is bad. This means that people are not interested in such material.

On this site, there is no end to the study of examples. Also here you can go to the practice. There is an opportunity to publish your review and see the reaction of the people.

Bad book review example

We analyze a bad example of a review of the third book about Harry Potter - Prisoner of Azkaban. Click on the picture to enlarge.

Potter book review example

Look at how much verbal garbage is in the second sentence.

This book, for me personally, is especially noteworthy because ...

The pronoun is best omitted, as it is a weed. " Personally for me”- here it’s already clear who the author is and what it is for him.

Here is an essay by a very enthusiastic fifth grader! But let's look at this text as a review.

What do we see?

In addition to the huge number of grammatical errors, we see an attempt to retell the plot. Actually, the book was not about that. That is, even the plot could not be recounted.

There is an introduction to the new characters that appear in the third book. There is a short retelling of the plot. There are also emotions.

He was wonderful ... This book, like the previous ones, is filled with kindness, wonderful atmosphere and adventure.

The book is filled with kindness!

Well, of course. What kind of kindness is this, where half of the heroes were killed? Yes, there are adventures. There is also an atmosphere. But she's far from amazing.

What is missing?

No book rating. Not in her expressiveness. Not in the context of other Potter books. There was an attempt, but it failed.

These questions have not been answered.

You say: " Well, OK. The child wrote and he is forgiven". Let's then look at the materials written by adults.

Bad movie review

Let's now take a look at how badly the review of the Judge Dredd movie was written. What mistakes did the author make?

Judge Dredd movie review

Here is an attempt to evaluate in context. As an assessment in the context of the previous film, and comics that the author did not read. But let's not be skeptical about comics. It's just the source for this story.

What is missing?

No idea what the piece is about. If you have not watched the 1995 film, then you will obviously not be interested in the new picture. After all, nothing is clear from this review.

Surely, the film was not about a high-rise building in which there are shootings. That is, there was some thought. Which? There was a hero. Which?

Who is Judge Dredd? What does he do? Why was it filmed and about what? That's all there is in the text.

Good example

Let's look at a good review example. Let's start with the criticism written by Avdotya Smirnova.

This is a great collection of examples!

Another question is that this is aerobatics. This does not mean that after reading her reviews, we will be offended and will not write anything.

Like all literate, well-read and intelligent people, Avdotya Smirnova has a very strange language. Her grades are often harsh. But this does not mean that you need to write in this style. However, let's take a look.

Review from Avdotya Smirnova

At the beginning, you can notice the evaluation in context. Evaluation of not only the works of Marinina. There is also a link to the movie Seven and painting by Bosch. This once again proves the savvy and erudition of the critic.

Of course, it turned out to be a very sarcastic article.

There is no plot retelling here. But there are hints of it. There is an assessment in the context, as well as the characters of the characters. There is a language assessment ( means of expression). There are questions and answers to them. So this is interesting.

Good book review

Another good book review New Literary Review". The author is also Smirnova.

Book Review New Literary Review

Of course, there is such caustic humor at the end. But nevertheless, it is an occasion to reflect.

Conclusion

Now you know what a review is and how to write one. We also reviewed a few examples. There were both good examples and bad ones.

It can be computer games, a performance, an exhibition, a concert, a music album. It may also be some kind of scientific work. For example, an expert opinion, program, diploma, term paper, and so on.

It must be a new work with an attempt to evaluate in context. Trying to understand what the author wanted to say. How did he do it. With the help of what properties and means of expressiveness.

And of course, read the reviews on the film search site and on various book portals. You can also find examples in major glossy magazines. They are also often seen there.

In general, do not neglect such an analytical genre. It may still be of use to you.

How to write a review and review?

Review- this is a written analysis of a scientific text (article, term paper or thesis, manuscript, dissertation). The review plan includes:

1) subject of analysis (topic, genre of the reviewed work);

2) the relevance of the topic of a term paper or a thesis, dissertation, article, manuscript;

3) a summary of the reviewed work, its main provisions;

4) overall assessment of the work by the reviewer;

5) shortcomings, shortcomings of work;

6) reviewer's conclusions.

Review gives only a general description of the work without a detailed analysis, but contains practical recommendations: the analyzed text can be accepted for work in a publishing house or for a degree.


Sample plan for writing reviews and testimonials

Relevance of the topic. ( The work is devoted to the actual topic... The relevance of the topic is due to... The relevance of the topic does not require additional evidence (no doubt, it is quite obvious...).

Formulation of the main thesis. ( The central issue of the work, where the author has achieved the most significant (noticeable, tangible ...) results, is ... The article rightly puts forward the question of ...).

Overall score. ( Evaluating the work as a whole... Summing up the results of individual chapters... Thus, the work under consideration... The author has shown the ability to understand... systematized the material and generalized it... The author's unconditional merit is a new methodological approach (the proposed classification, clarification of existing concepts ...), The author, of course, deepens our understanding of the phenomenon under study, reveals its new features ... The work, no doubt, opens ...).

Drawbacks, shortcomings. ( At the same time, the thesis that ... The shortcomings (shortcomings) of the work should include those admitted by the author ... (insufficient clarity in the presentation ...), The work is constructed irrationally, it should be reduced ... (provide recommendations), A significant drawback of the work is ... The noted shortcomings are purely local in nature and do not affect the final results of the work ... The noted shortcomings of the work do not reduce its high level, they can rather be considered wishes for the author's future work ... ... how much...).

Review

Review

REVIEW - one of the most common critical genres. R. make up the so-called thick magazines. bibliographic department. R. - a critical analysis of a work - of a literary, artistic, scientific, journalistic nature, etc. - providing information about this work and evaluating it to such an extent that a brief review does not develop into a critical study (see Criticism). In the future, we will only deal with reviews of works of fiction.
R. breaks up into three parts:
1. Bibliographically accurate designation of the book under review. The surname, name of the author and the title of the book, volume or part, if the book is divided into such, publisher, place and year of publication, number of pages in the book, circulation and price are written out.
2. Presentation of the content of the book. For information about a work of art, it is necessary to retell the plot, for scientific work - a brief retelling of the content by chapter or department of the book.
3. Evaluation of the book. The last part is the most essential in R., it reveals the character of R. as one of the genres of literary criticism (see).
R.'s character and ideological level are conditioned by the author's class outlook, his literary training, and his critical skill. In the most advanced journals of the past, R. has always played the role of a combat skirmisher in the struggle against backward and class-alien works. In Russian literature, the editors are the revolutionary democrats of the 60s. - gave R. the value of the ideological and political assessment of literature. According to Dobrolyubov, “a journal should take for bibliography only such works that either disagree or agree with its direction; in the first case, he has the opportunity to refute hostile thoughts, undermine, ridicule, destroy them; in the second case, he is given an excuse to repeat his own thoughts, recall them, clarify, confirm or strengthen them. Works that are indifferent in terms of direction, even if they are serious and interesting in themselves, should not fall into the bibliography of a general journal ”(see the memoirs of M. Antonovich, in the collection “The Sixties”, published by “Academia”, 1933, p. 139).
Modern Marxist journalism must be strictly scientific and, at the same time, topical and journalistic. Giving information about the publication of the book and evaluating it, the reviewer must make a scientific analysis of the material and highlight the results of his research from the point of view of the political tasks of the working class. Evaluation should not be introduced from outside, but flow organically from the fact, from its nature, which determines the significance of the work for socialist construction. The reviewer should be able to show the achievements or mistakes of the author, criticize the latter; he must be able to give social characteristics not only of ideas, but also of all other elements of the work. Abstract definitions in writing, such as "broad concept, original and sharp plot, interesting form," etc., do not provide the reader with a criterion for evaluating either the artistic or the ideological side of the work. From the side of style, R. requires brevity from the author, the ability to formulate his thoughts in an accurate, concise and distinct form.
R. does not require detailed argumentation; it should avoid any deviation from the immediate task, historical, philosophical, and other digressions. Otherwise R. turns into a critical article. In the history of criticism, we find another special kind of R. - autoreviews. They usually appear when, under the conditions of a fierce struggle, opponents resort to hushing up certain books. An example of an author's review is N. G. Chernyshevsky's author's review of his book "The Aesthetic Relationship of Art to Reality". Bibliography:
Meunier, E. F., Die Entwicklung des Feuilletons der grossen Presse, Diss., Hdlb., 1914; Lempicki S., v., uber literarische Kritik u. die Probleme ihrer Erforschung, "Euphorion", XXV, 1924, S. 501 ff.; Eckardt F., Das Besprechungswesen, Lpz., 1927; Matsuev N.I., Russian and translated fiction. 1917-1925, Index of articles and reviews, M. - Odessa, 1926; Somov N.M., Critical bibliography. (Essay on newspaper and magazine bibliography), M., 1928, p. 50 et seq.; Matsuev N. I., Fiction in the evaluation of periodicals, "Literary Critic", 1933, Nos. 4, 5 and 7; Him, Criticism and Literary Studies (Bibliographic Index), ibid., 1934, Nos. 2 and 3 (the last work is a continuation of the previous one; both register reviews and articles on criticism and literary criticism from April 1932 to August 1933); Chronicle of reviews for 1934, edited by Ya. N. Beletsky, V. I. Solovyov, E. I. Shamurin, ed. State. central book chamber, M., 1935.

Literary encyclopedia. - In 11 tons; M .: publishing house of the Communist Academy, Soviet Encyclopedia, Fiction. Edited by V. M. Friche, A. V. Lunacharsky. 1929-1939 .

Review

(lat. recensio - consideration), a critical article or note that contains a review of a literary, musical, theatrical, cinematic work. The review provides an analysis and evaluation of the work, and, if necessary, a summary. A review that evaluates several works, united on some basis, is called a review. A book review is part of its history and the key to understanding it (for example, reviews by V.G. Belinsky on the works of writers of the first half. 19th century).

Literature and language. Modern illustrated encyclopedia. - M.: Rosman. Under the editorship of prof. Gorkina A.P. 2006 .

Review

REVIEW(recensio - examination, verification, analysis) - a small critical article or note, mostly monographic in nature, about a particular book that has just been published. R-ii are placed in the general and special organs of the periodical press (newspapers, magazines). With the ever-increasing growth of publishing and the colossal filling of the book market, the role of r-th, with the least expenditure of time, acquainting the reader with the general course of the area of ​​literature of interest to him, marking its most outstanding phenomena, allowing, without even reading the book itself, to judge its character, content, advantages and disadvantages, and finally, warning against waste paper, is becoming more and more significant. Therefore, in addition to general press organs, in which R-ii are usually found on the last page of a newspaper or at the end of a magazine and play a relatively secondary role, recently in the West and in our country numerous publications have appeared that set themselves the special goal of systematic description in a number of R-s. ii, compiled expert reviewers, all areas of current literature. Accordingly, the district is put forward here to a predominantly honorable place, often the entire journal is nothing more than a continuous collection r-th. These are our magazines: Print and revolution"(the best of the publications of this kind)," Book and revolution», « Bulletins of Literature and Life», « A new book"and some. others

A large composite book, covering a whole series of books, united among themselves according to chronological or some other internal feature (for example, “Seven Years of Russian Poetry”, “Western Literature on Aviation during the War Years”, etc.) is called review.

D. Good. Literary encyclopedia: Dictionary of literary terms: In 2 volumes / Edited by N. Brodsky, A. Lavretsky, E. Lunin, V. Lvov-Rogachevsky, M. Rozanov, V. Cheshikhin-Vetrinsky. - M.; L.: Publishing house L. D. Frenkel, 1925

Synonyms:

See what "Review" is in other dictionaries:

Review of the genre of journalism, as well as scientific and artistic criticism. The review informs about the new work, contains its brief analysis and evaluation. Translated from the Latin "recensio" means "view, message, rating, review ... ... Wikipedia

- (etym. see the previous next). Analysis, evaluation of the essay. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. REVIEW [lat. recensio examination, inspection] 1) lit. article, the purpose of which is a critical analysis of what l. ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

Cm … Synonym dictionary

REVIEW, reviews, wives. (from lat. recensio revision). 1. Critical review of a performance, concert, scientific or literary work. 2. The same as the edition in 2 digits. (philol.). New review of Cicero. Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov. D.N. Ushakov. 1935… … Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

Reviewers have the right not only to tell people in the eye that they are fools, but even to prove it to them. Georg Lichtenberg Writing a review takes so much time that there is no time to read the book itself. Groucho Marx A reviewer rarely likes books about ... ... Consolidated encyclopedia of aphorisms

review- REVIEW, review RESPONSE / REVIEW, owls. review, review/review... Dictionary-thesaurus of synonyms of Russian speech

review- A review, otherwise a critical analysis, is written on any work and never on any work. Sentences like: A newspaper review of a new movie (need a new movie) is incorrect... Dictionary of Russian language mistakes

- (from lat. recensio consideration) 1) newspaper-magazine genre; critical analysis and evaluation of a new artistic or scientific work. 2) Review of a scientific work or literary work of art before their publication, defense, etc ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

REVIEW, and, wives. Critical review about what n. writing, play, film. R. on a book or about a book. Submit an article for review. Negative, positive p. | adj. review, oh, oh. Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova… … Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

Review(from Latin recensio "consideration") - review, analysis and evaluation of a new artistic, scientific or popular science work; genre of criticism, literary, newspaper and magazine publication.

The review characterizes small and short.

The reviewer deals first novelties, about which practically no one has yet written, about which a definite opinion has not yet been formed.

In the classics, the reviewer discovers, first of all, the possibility of its actual, cutting-edge reading. Any work must be considered in the context of modern life and the modern literary process: it must be evaluated precisely as a new phenomenon. Such topicality is an indispensable feature of a review.

By essays-reviews we mean such creative works:

• a short literary-critical or journalistic article (often of a polemical nature), in which the work in question is an occasion for discussing topical social or literary problems;
• an essay that is more of a lyrical reflection of the author of the review, inspired by the reading of the work, than its interpretation;
• a detailed annotation, which reveals the content of the work, features of the composition and at the same time contains its assessment.

A school examination review is understood as a review - a detailed annotation.

An approximate plan for a review of a literary work.

1. Bibliographic description of the work (author, title, publisher, year of issue) and a brief (in one or two sentences) retelling of its content.
2. Immediate response to a work of literature (review-impression).
3. Critical analysis or complex analysis of the text:
   - the meaning of the name
   - analysis of its form and content
   - features of the composition
   - skill of the author in the image of heroes
   - individual writing style
4. Reasoned assessment of the work and personal reflections of the author of the review:
   - the main idea of ​​the review
   - the relevance of the subject matter of the work

The review does not necessarily contain all of the above components, the main thing is that the review is interesting and competent.

Reviewing principles.

The impulse to create a review is always the need to express one's attitude to what one has read, this is an attempt to understand one's impressions caused by a work, but on the basis of elementary knowledge in literary theory, a detailed analysis of the work.

The reader can say about the book he read or the movie he watched "like - dislike" without evidence. And the reviewer must carefully substantiate his opinion with a deep and reasoned analysis.

The quality of the analysis depends on the theoretical and professional background of the reviewer, his depth of understanding of the subject, the ability to analyze objectively.

The author's "I" manifests itself openly in order to rationally, logically and emotionally influence the reader. Therefore, the reviewer uses language tools that combine the functions of naming and evaluating, bookish and colloquial words and constructions.

Criticism does not study literature, but judges it - in order to form a reader's, public attitude towards certain writers, to actively influence the course of the literary process.

Briefly, what you need to remember when writing a review:

A detailed retelling reduces the value of a review: firstly, it will not be interesting to read the work itself; secondly, one of the criteria for a weak review is rightly considered to be the substitution of the analysis and interpretation of the text by its retelling.

Every book begins with a title, which you somehow interpret and guess in the process of reading. The title of a good work is always ambiguous, it is a kind of symbol, a metaphor.

A lot for understanding and interpreting the text can be given by the analysis of the composition. Reflections on what compositional techniques (antithesis, ring construction, etc.) are used in the work will help the reviewer to penetrate the author's intention. What parts can the text be divided into? How are they located?

It is important to evaluate the style, originality of the writer, analyze the images, artistic techniques that he uses in his work, and consider what his individual, unique style is, how this author differs from others. The reviewer analyzes "how" the text is made.

A school review should be written as if no one in the examination committee is familiar with the work under review. You need to guess what questions this person might ask, and try to prepare the answers to them in advance in the text.

Used materials from the site: publiclibrary.ru

Review (from lat. recensio "review") - review, analysis and evaluation of a new artistic, scientific or popular science work; genre of criticism, literary, newspaper and magazine publication.
The review is characterized by a small volume and brevity.

In the classics, the reviewer discovers, first of all, the possibility of its actual, cutting-edge reading. Any work must be considered in the context of modern life and the modern literary process: it must be evaluated precisely as a new phenomenon. Such topicality is an indispensable feature of a review.

Reviews are creative works, for example:

• a short literary-critical or journalistic article (often of a polemical nature), in which the work in question is an occasion for discussing topical social or literary problems;
• an essay that is more of a lyrical reflection of the author of the review, inspired by the reading of the work, than its interpretation;
• a detailed annotation, which reveals the content of the work, features of the composition and at the same time contains its assessment.

An approximate plan for a review of a literary work

Bibliographic description of the work (author, title, publisher, year of issue) and a brief (in one or two sentences) retelling of its content.
Immediate response to a work of literature (review-impression).

Critical analysis or complex analysis of the text:

• the meaning of the name
• analysis of its form and content
• composition features
• the skill of the author in the image of heroes
• writer's personal style

Reasoned assessment of the work and personal reflections of the author of the review:

• main idea of ​​the review
• the relevance of the subject of the work

The review does not necessarily contain all of the above components, the main thing is that the review is interesting and competent.

Reviewing principles.
The impulse to create a review is always the need to express one's attitude to what one has read, this is an attempt to understand one's impressions caused by a work, but on the basis of elementary knowledge in literary theory, a detailed analysis of the work.

The reader can say about the read book or watched the movie "like or dislike" without evidence. And the reviewer must carefully substantiate his opinion with a deep and reasoned analysis. The relationship between the reviewer and the author is a creative dialogue with an equal position of the parties. The author's "I" manifests itself openly in order to rationally, logically and emotionally influence the reader. Therefore, the reviewer uses language tools that combine the functions of naming and evaluating, bookish and colloquial words and constructions. A detailed retelling reduces the value of a review: firstly, it will not be interesting to read the work itself; secondly, one of the criteria for a weak review is rightly considered to be the substitution of the analysis and interpretation of the text by its retelling.

Every book begins with a title, which you somehow interpret and guess in the process of reading. The title of a good work is always ambiguous, it is a kind of symbol, a metaphor. A lot for understanding and interpreting the text can be given by the analysis of the composition. Reflections on what compositional techniques (antithesis, ring construction, etc.) are used in the work will help the reviewer to penetrate the author's intention. What parts can the text be divided into? How are they located?

It is important to evaluate the style, originality of the writer, analyze the images, artistic techniques that he uses in his work, and consider what his individual, unique style is, how this author differs from others. The reviewer analyzes "how" the text is made. A school review should be written as if no one in the examination committee is familiar with the work under review. You need to guess what questions this person might ask, and try to prepare the answers to them in advance in the text.