Khuutra said:
I'm so glad you asked. You see, in criticism, you don't write for any particular audience at all, you write in order to contribute to the larger critical dialogue. This is how it works in literature reviews, music reviews, and to a lesser extent movie reviews (movie reviews have gotten a lot better in the past few decades, naturally) - you're not writing to an audience, you're writing for the sake of critical analysis in and of itself. Reviews are never a "buy or don't buy" sort of thing. They discuss merits of a piece of work according to certain critical standards and then extrapolate from there. |
I don't get what you are trying to say. For movie reviews, those top selling movies are usually reviewed quite badly and those which have good reviews aren't usually that popular. I don't know about book reviews, I haven't read a single book review but I think the same pattern is there too. Why? Because reviews are targeted to people who read a lot of books and watch a lot of movies (enough to care about reviews). If some demographic does not read reviews, why should the reviews be based on their standards?
Are you trying to say that the reviewers aren't critical or what? :)







