How do you write?

A thought occurred to me just now. What kind of manners or stylistic habits do you have when you write your reviews?

Everybody writes a certain way that is their style, so what do you consider as something that is habitual to your style; a structural approach, a certain mannerism that often repeats itself from review to review, the way you write... in essence what is your style? Or do you take each review individually ("I wouldn't write about a DVD like I would about a bath bomb"). Here's a chance for you to turn into yourself and analyse your own writing mannerisms.



I myself would say that I tend to write in my terminology "flowingly" in that I have a desire to make each review feel naturally enjoyable. This means that I often find myself changing minute details in sentences like wording, length and order to make it feel more comfortable for the mouth and to convey my idea with as much ease of thought as possible (i.e. stream of consciousness; whether I always succeed or not is up to the reader).

Otherwise I don't have that much of a structural coherency. Sometimes I use headers if I feel the review benefits from them, or not if they feel superfluous. At others I may start some running joke that will go through the entire review (such as the ol' gents in one Elgar review). I may write at length, or more to the point (depends). I may get all emotional at times and at other ultra-analytical. So in essence I take each review individually to fit the subject matter the best I see it.

So there's my analysis of my writing. How about you? (And yes, "i.e. stream of consciousness" sentence was an afterthought )

I think that I try to think in logical order when I write reviews. Sometimes, when I am angry or upset about a product, I distance myself from it and write when I am able to be objective. I tend to introduce the product, say why I bought it in comparison with others. I do tend to search around as I don't have limited resources. I think my thoughts when I write a review is "what would I ask if I were seeking information ?", read it again and again to see if it answers my questions. I like flow as well though not sure I achieve it every time. I do when it is something I feel passionately about.

I like writing under headings because it breaks down the review. I find it hard to stay focused while reading long paragraphs, so I find it hard to write them too.

I also like headings because it means I can cut back and forth while I'm writing, if a comment about packaging comes to me when I'm writing about cost, then I can just scroll back to the right heading and add it in. Heading also stop me getting off track and rambling on about something irrelevant instead.

I do try to keep the headings the same for most of my reviews, and in the same order, thats the closest thing I have to 'flow'

I basically try to keep my review in some sort of logical order like Rachel.
Also I think spacing it out into easy to read paragraphs is important, as it's easier on the eye. Lisa x

I think my style has changed as i have developed as a writer. i think for a while i wnated to write fun reviess but now i prefer it if they are consumer orientated.It depends on the product really. i was proud of my review of my DAB radio as that was extremly cusotmer focussed and it was technical. it's the one i am most proud of getting a crown for. I tnd to put don thoughts then flesh them out. I'm not one for headidngs nowadays.

i treat each revew as a mini essay with a beginning midlde and end. I like a good introduction as I find it draw me into a review.IdI like to set myself a question in my introduction as that feels natural due to all the essays I have written. I also like to have a good title and to play with the words there. I am never going to be a proper writer so my reviewing is a way to express myself

Picking up on Dusk's comment I wanted to add something on the importance of a good start.

Several newbies have asked me 'why don't more people read me?' and I advise them to put more effort into their intros.

On dooyoo they can get away with it - nobody sees the intro though sometimes I wish we could - but on Ciao it's absolutely essential that the first paragraph is a cracker.

Oldies can get away with a poor intro if they already have a good CoT and a reputation but when I see a newbie write 'I was bored so I thought I'd have a go at this challenge' I just don't want to read it.

Agreed. A good beginning is half the review written already.

Yep definitely. An introduction and conclusion/summary are two of the most important bits in any review.

I can't say the introduction is the part that makes me want to read a review. I find it the hardest part to write though, but usually once I get started the rest is not so troublesome.

Titles are more likely to pull me in, I'm tired of seeing titles like "Review of <insert product>".

Yeah, a nice witty title, or play on words is much more likely to get me to read it that just the product name

Sexual innuendo in your title always seems to get people flocking to your review, no idea why

christianfilmcritic wrote:

Sexual innuendo in your title always seems to get people flocking to your review, no idea why

This is true. Always works for me

Because people are

berlioz wrote:

I myself would say that I tend to write in my terminology "flowingly" in that I have a desire to make each review feel naturally enjoyable. This means that I often find myself changing minute details in sentences like wording, length and order to make it feel more comfortable for the mouth and to convey my idea with as much ease of thought as possible (i.e. stream of consciousness; whether I always succeed or not is up to the reader).

This is very much how I feel about my reviews. The similarity possibly comes from us both writing a lot of reviews about creatives mediums (you - music, me - film).

Beyond that I do have a loose structure for all my film reviews. A brief introduction to the plot, opinions of that, direction, actors, music/fx. From time to time I will shake things up if it suits the mood of the review, or there is something particular that I want to highlight above all else. But as you say, first and foremost for me is to have a naturally evolving flow of writing that is enjoyable to read. And not too long. I try to keep all my film reviews within 1000 words. Any more is usually unneccessary.

I have a natural dislike for reviews that list things - although exceptions can be made depending on the product/subject matter. I do recall someone made a witty use of listing things though. I like innovation in reviews too, but am not that good at it myself. I tend to crack cheap gags instead. lol.

The Polar One wrote:

I like innovation in reviews too, but am not that good at it myself. I tend to crack cheap gags instead. lol.

I sometimes try this too to add some more spice to a well known formula. I once began a review with a poem, but I have a feeling it didn't go down as well... Safe to say, I won't be doing that again.

I try to write like I talk, only problem is when I talk, all the words get garbled up, i leave things out and no one understands what i am trying to say!

I try to include some humour and make the review light hearted, occasionally I will write solely for myself and be more creative in my style with a random review that I enjoy writing and care little about the readers view although most times they get positive comments.

My reviews are usually tongue in cheek, I find it impossible to write a serious review.

Shorter and shorter as time goes on but for me not in a bad way. Rarely does a review hit over 1000 words and they most average between 400 and 700 words.

Goes back to my ciao days when I set a challenge to cut down review lengths after some inspiration from an epinions and TBH I have rarely felt the need to pad out beyond that. Maybe most people have more to say than I have!

I remember that challenge and in fact I did an under 500 word review that received mostly VH rates (on music no less). In essence, I could do short reviews too, but I just don't want to.

berlioz wrote:

I remember that challenge and in fact I did an under 500 word review that received mostly VH rates (on music no less). In essence, I could do short reviews too, but I just don't want to.

Thats a good thing though. You know you can but you have more to say and that is all too the good.

Most of my film and book reviews are less than 750 words these days without even really trying.

I now try to make them shorter but still have the same amount of info as a 3000 word review. I try to get straight into my review so i moved the game info to the end of my review and cut a majority of it out.

I'm not concerned with length really though. It dsoesn't matter to me whether my review is 500 or 5000 words. I'm more concerned that I get as much info, experience and opinion in there as possible.

My Helium review, for example, is about 2500 which is pretty long for a website review, but I personally think it's chock full of opinion and experience, unlike most other web site reviews that are "well, down the left side is the navigation menu. It's red and there are 15 buttons..."

For me, it depends what game i'm reviewing is to how much info i put in. Take Kingdom Hearts II, that has lots of things to write about so i try to put as much as i can. But a game like, say, Viewtiful Joe wouldn't be as big as there's not as much to it as Kingdom Hearts II.

A website review, i'd imagine, would be pretty long anyways as there's lots to talk about websites.