Review or Critique, Which is it?

Budroe over at Writing.com has written a really wonderful article about the difference between reviewing a book and critiquing it.

I think this is something EVERY book blogger should check out.

GO TO THE ARTICLE

Budroe goes in depth on the difference between the Review, in which one looks at the qualities of a book from a reader's standpoint, vs. the Critique, in which one examines a book from the viewpoint and expertise of a writer.

Obviously I write reviews.

I am in no way qualified to give any writer an in depth critique of their work... nor would I want to. Everything I write and rate on my blog is based purely on my own opinion as a reader, and each review is a description of what I took away from the book (as well as usually a list of characters and who they were, just for my own sake of having one somewhere... you have no idea how hard it is to find comprehensive lists of characters -_-)

When I write a review, unless there is something technically jarring (and it's got to be pretty darn jarring for me to notice it), I usually won't mention it. I sometimes talk about how well the prose flow, but for me, that's part of the reading experience. I'll also sometimes mention something technical, writing-wise, that pulls me out of a story, but again, it was part of the reading experience for me, so I mention it.

I do this for fun, and I do this for myself... to have a journal of what I've read with more detail jotted down than I likely would have remembered just from recall a few years later.

I don't network my blog to get my stuff seen, I do it because being connected to all of these other readers and authors offers me a wider perspective on what is being released, and what is going on in the literary world. I've learned about dozens and dozens of books that I'm pretty sure I never would have heard of or looked at, and it's all because of book blogging.

I am eternally grateful to the blogging community for helping me stay connected, for keeping up on the trends, and for keeping up on news that I just don't have the time to always seek out myself.

Also, just as a side note, I found this article because it was linked to a manga review in which someone left a comment slamming the reviewer, saying:
Was this written by a preteen? There’s no critical view, no actual structure or argument or thesis, just “i like this” and “then this happened, then this happened, ooh those characters look naughty.” It’s posts like this which make it difficult to take HU seriously, especially the slew of scornful posts on Eddie Campbell’s critical abilities. Not that I agree with Campbell but how is HU any different in being fanboying dressed up as criticism? Certianly not with insipid posts like this.

Now, for me, when I read reviews, I want to hear the "I like this" and the fanboy/girling... for me, that's what reviews are about, public opinions... and that's why I think Budroe's article on review vs. critique is so good... it really points it all out in a very concise way.

I think it is up to us as readers and bloggers to get to know the people who are writing these blog reviews, so that we can better judge how well their opinions mesh with our own.