However, even adding what you just wrote to the article, the article would still be 98% synopsis. A review discusses positives, negatives, and just why certain things are so.
You have a great point there about furry as 'window dressing', I believe you termed it earlier.
So you've discussed some negatives, in a very general sense. My next questions would be: Are there positives? What are they? What about each specific story?
I wouldn't say you needed to go super-in-depth into each story, given that there are so many, but a few comments in the vein of positives or negatives wouldn't be amiss. And a vast expansion of your discussion about what rubbed you the wrong way about the book as a whole would be very welcome. It widens the discussion about furry literature as a whole to have someone with a platform and a recognizable name such as yourself to actually dig into some issues. Not saying you have to dwell exclusively on the negative, there's always a way to put a positive light on things. It's called constructive criticism. If we as a fandom want our literature to grow to a higher standard (or even if just some of us do), then discussions like that are important and we can't shy away from them or think they aren't worth having.
The only caution I ever have when reviewing any furry book is that I try to make sure I'm noting positive with the negative. I've seen at least one book, that I liked very much, absolutely destroyed by a review that was nothing but one giant arson job. In reading the review, I agreed with some of the reviewer's points but he neglected to mention any redeeming qualities to the book, of which there were many, and it was clear he was eviscerating it for "teh lulz".
So, with all of the above in mind, I hope you're taking my remarks in the spirit in which they're intended, which is constructive criticism. I intend no offense and I am not questioning your abilities in any way.
I hate to say it, but...sort of?
However, even adding what you just wrote to the article, the article would still be 98% synopsis. A review discusses positives, negatives, and just why certain things are so.
You have a great point there about furry as 'window dressing', I believe you termed it earlier.
So you've discussed some negatives, in a very general sense. My next questions would be: Are there positives? What are they? What about each specific story?
I wouldn't say you needed to go super-in-depth into each story, given that there are so many, but a few comments in the vein of positives or negatives wouldn't be amiss. And a vast expansion of your discussion about what rubbed you the wrong way about the book as a whole would be very welcome. It widens the discussion about furry literature as a whole to have someone with a platform and a recognizable name such as yourself to actually dig into some issues. Not saying you have to dwell exclusively on the negative, there's always a way to put a positive light on things. It's called constructive criticism. If we as a fandom want our literature to grow to a higher standard (or even if just some of us do), then discussions like that are important and we can't shy away from them or think they aren't worth having.
The only caution I ever have when reviewing any furry book is that I try to make sure I'm noting positive with the negative. I've seen at least one book, that I liked very much, absolutely destroyed by a review that was nothing but one giant arson job. In reading the review, I agreed with some of the reviewer's points but he neglected to mention any redeeming qualities to the book, of which there were many, and it was clear he was eviscerating it for "teh lulz".
So, with all of the above in mind, I hope you're taking my remarks in the spirit in which they're intended, which is constructive criticism. I intend no offense and I am not questioning your abilities in any way.