Reviewing foibles

marymoose99 wrote:

Just to clear it up Sonia, it's means it is!

Although if I was saying "Mary's moose has lovely antlers" (because the moose belongs to me - in my dreams anyway) we do NOT say "It's antlers are lovely" (Its antlers are lovely is correct), that would read as "It is antlers are lovely" and wouldn't make sense

Thanks! I knew that it's means it is but for some reason I thought it was more complicated than that. In my defence I was never taught grammar or punctuation properly in school. I wonder if every person on dooyoo who can't tell the difference between it's and its or your and you're was in my year at school... they changed the curriculum so that we missed out on learning about it.

Lists that make reviews read like instruction manuals.

koshkha, "quite unique" is another one - aaaaarrrrrgggggghhhhhh, is there no hope?

I don't think the media helps, they're always describing things as unique (or worse, very unique, or quite unique) when they're not.

Also, people who use 'should of' or 'would of' - sigh...

Back in 2001, I wrote the original version of my English Grammar review for Epinions, (long since updated and cross posted) and received one of the funniest comments I've ever had:

Quote :

I recall reading the back cover of a SF novel in the store some time ago. In attempting to describe how much trouble the heroine would get into before this adventure was over, it said something along these lines: "She is opposed by the most omnipotent forces in the galaxy."

"OH, NO!" I thought. "Not the most omnipotent forces! That means she's dead meat for sure! Now, if she were only challenging the very omnipotent forces, she'd have at least a slender chance, I suppose? Or if she were challenging the moderately omnipotent or slightly omnipotent, it would be a good, close battle! And naturally she'd scarcely have any cause for concern if she were only pitted against the least omnipotent forces in the galaxy! You know what a bunch of milksops those people are! But no, the foolhardy girl had to defy the wishes of the Most Omnipotent! Serves her right; she should have known better!"

Who writes the summaries on the backs of paperbacks, anyway? The editors? Their assistants-in-training? It's really hard to believe that this particular one was written by someone with a degree in English or Journalism or some such discipline, but what do I know?

On a similar vein, the mother of an ex-girlfriend of my OH, on their breaking up, told him that she hoped he rotted in hell "for all eternity" - as opposed to some of it, presumably.

When I used to keep up with exciting developments in the world of proof reading, there was a school of thought that maintains it is possible to use 'very unique' in certain cases. The argument went that if something is unique in more than one way - if it's, for instance, both the only lizard with antlers in a group, and the only lizard with a little human face - then it can be described as 'very unique'.

Personally I think that's a foolish argument, as you can't add one uniqueness to another, but maybe that's why people use it. (Ha ha. Of course it isn't. But I'm quite taken with the idea of a lizard with a man's face and antlers.)

What about "Almost unique"......or would that be the same as saying there's two of them?

Yes, 'would of', 'should of' and 'could' of bug me too, but I can almost understand that as people hear people saying "would've" and I think that they think that the 've means 'of'!

Isn't there a song that goes wudda shudda cudda?

I think anyone that says should of and could of, never mind write it should of been shot at birth for their own protection....that is one of the most basic rules...!


I have zero tolerance over this particular foible..!! (you should of known that hehe)

I hate when a whole review is just a comparison with another product. I think I'm guilty of doing this myself but I hate when I read a book review for example that just compares that book to another book and if you haven't read the other book the review doesn't make sense.

I do think comparison has value though - often if you're in the market for a gadget or white goods or similar you wil look at various options. To know a reviewer's thoughts on other bits of kit can really help. I think you can do it in books too - you just have to do it in a way that means that the reviews stands alone whether you have or have not read the items in question.

My issue isn't when people compare things, it's when that's all the review is. I agree that comparison has value, particularly if you're familiar with the other product.

I agree. Very often, for example when I'm reviewing a film of a book I have read (or vice versa) I compare how well the characters are realised in one versus the other, whether changes to the plot help to make it a stronger or weaker experience etc.

I think this sort of comparative approach s valid. It's when you say you're reviewing the film but actually end up talking more about the book that it's a problem. It's a hard thing to balance and one I'm always slightly conscious of when doing it. My review of The Time Traveler's Wife (film), for example, makes lots of reference to the book, but hopefully gives you enough information about the strengths and weaknesses of the film.

My fav is ' I wont tell you to much about the plot'