Review

Review in fandom has come to have two different usages, depending on the fan community and context. 
Often it matches the mainstream meaning of "review," as in movie reviews or book reviews, especially in relation to the source texts, e.g. fan-written episode reviews. Similarly, fans may post opinions and evaluations of fanfic and other fanworks, and call this a "review", especially if it is longer and/or critical, to distinguish it from recs. While not always positive, reviews, like recs, are aimed at other fans rather than the fanwork creators, unlike feedback, which is for the creator.
However, in certain forums and fic archives, such as fanfiction.net, the public comments are called "reviews," though they are intended primarily as feedback for the authors (though not entirely, as such reviews are public, and may help readers select a story, especially since the comment numbers are displayed as a possible indicator of popularity). In these communities, review has come to mean simply "comment", e.g. in the common plea to "please read & review" (or "R&R" for short).
In the Xenaverse there usually is no distinction between reviews and recs because generally only recommended stories get reviewed and therefore review sites are recommendation sites, like for example Lunacy's Fan Fiction Reviews, BLURB, or Cee's FanFic Reviews.
==Controversy==
As with concrit, critical reviews of fanworks can be a matter of contention in fandom. Some fans consider the practice discourteous to the fan creators unless permission for it has been clearly granted, while others believe discussion of fanworks to be an important aspect of fannish discourse, and the permission is implicit in posting a work publicly."All of these conversations can be important parts of the fannish discourse." synecdochic in "Cult of nice" vs. "cult of mean", round 2847, fight, posted 23 July 2008 (Accessed 22 February 2009) These issues have never been resolved, and the same arguments will be found in print zines of the 1980s and on Tumblr during during the 2014 Goodreads wank.
Kathryn Andersen had this comment in the late 1990s: 
In the 1996 issue of the Black Bean Soup mailing list newsletter where one fan called for a moratorium on identifying authors or publishers when reviewing a zine, unless they had been given express permission. The poster attempted to fold the request into Internet privacy concerns, but the core of the argument centered on the fact that the poster felt that negative reviews were "mean-spirited". By mentioning the author's name and then tying that name to the negative review, the "spirit of fandom" would be tarnished. Letter to the editor, Black Bean Soup, Volume 2, Issue #39, Part 1, dated 27 October 1996 (1995).
Other readers and the editor of the Black Bean Soup disagreed: "Reviews serve an important function to inform prospective purchasers/readers/viewers about things that they may wish to either experience or avoid. A review is simply the opinion of the reviewer, with which other individuals may or may not agree." Ibid.
The editor pointed out that not giving credit to the author or the zine publisher could raise other problems: "There is also the opposite position to consider. If one mentions a zine or work of fanfic and does *not* mention the editor/authors, some feel that this is not giving proper credit to the person whose work is being reviewed." 
After peeling away the privacy issues, the editor went out to point out that a prohibition of discussing fan fiction and mentioning authors or publishers was both elitist and counter to the spirit of fannish discourse: 
In 2000, Annie Wortham wrote: 
 
In 2008, klangley56 offered a pragmatic approach to the question of 'To Review Or Not To Review': 
==The Anonymous Reviewers==
Some reviewers chose, and choose, to review others' fanworks anonymously. Some feel that it frees her or him from the social constraints of having to say positive things about material without merit for fear of the conflict it would create in her or his fannish community. In other words, an anonymous review can be more truthful. Others feel that reviews should be done under the reviewer's accountable identity, that anonymous reviews are irresponsible and can lead to undue harshness. 
One reviewer, Tigriffin writes (in the third person) in Datazine: 
One example of a fan taking offense of a reviewer's anonymity: 
There were a handful of anonymous reviewers during the Golden Age of Zines, most of them officially associated with a specific zine. Some examples: H.O. Petard for Implosion, T'Yenta for Universal Translator, and Tigriffin for Datazine. Most zine eds, however, refused to run unsolicited anonymous reviews. The editor of the K/S zine The LOC Connection only allowed anonymous reviews for the first few issues, but eventually changed the policy after subscribers asked that names be attached to reviews.
One controversial review of Interstat, done with the pseud "Kristen Brady," was sent to four zines: Orion, Power of Speech, Datazine, and Interstat. Only "Datazine" and Interstat" refused to run it. The piece is called: "Anatomy of a Letterzine" and the reviewer takes a look "at the letterzine know as 'Bennett's Tenets,' also known as 'The Harve Bennett Fan Club Newsletter,' or, as it is more commonly called, Interstat". The reviewer takes the zine to task for two things: one, its "gnashing of teeth, the raking of claws, and the lashing of tongues -- not to mention the backbiting, mudslinging..." and two, the reviewer's belief that it is nothing but a censored rag dedicated toward TPTB. The editors of "Datazine" distanced themselves from this review, stating they had a policy of not printing things by anonymous reviewers. "Interstat's" fans, in turn, wrote many LoCs in support of their letterzine.
Some LiveJournal spaces are dedicated to anonymous reviews of fanworks. The Fic Discussion posts at the Supernatural anon meme (initially part of the main spnpermanon meme, after its demise in dedicated posts at the successor meme) serve as sometimes controversial spaces where fans anonymously review fic and art created for fests and exchanges such as the SPN J2 Big Bang; other fandoms' anon memes may not have dedicated reviewing posts but may feature review threads in their main posts. Two multifandom anonymous fic reviewing comms were inspired by discussion at Fail-Fandomanon: anonficreviews, which had separate posts for various fandoms was active for a few months in 2010, and in November 2011, the LJ community reviewsanon was created for anonymous fic reviews and recs in all fandoms.first post at anonficreviews 15 July 2010. (Accessed 15 Dec 2011)Anonymous reviews thread at Fail-Fandomanon, 17 Nov 2011. (Accessed 15 Dec 2011)reviewsanon comm announcement thread at Fail-Fandomanon, 18 Nov 2011. (Accessed 15 Dec 2011)
==A Zined's Request==
From Interphase #4: 
==The Purpose of Reviews==
At the core of the review controversy is the fact that people see reviews serving differing purposes. For some, a review should be written to help the writer or creator of the works with constructive comments. From a 1979 issue of the Starsky and Hutch letterzine S and H: 
For others, zine reviews also serve a more practical purpose: to give potential buyers enough information to make an informed purchasing decision:
While these two purposes are not necessarily mutually exclusive, many arguments over the content and tone of reviews fail to acknowledge that a review written for one purpose may not always serve the other. This inability to distinguish between types of reviews can lead to circular and somewhat pointless debates over ethics, community standards, free speech, and roles and responsibilities of readers and writers. Somewhat surprisingly, even when a review is identified as falling into one category, many fans still insist that all reviews should be created with the same purpose in mind. This single purpose position is most often put forward by proponents of the argument that reviews are meant as "constructive feedback for the writer." Proponents of the "my review is meant for the reader" are more likely to acknowledge that their types of reviews may not be helpful for the writer. In fact, they do understand that this type of reviews may be off-putting and discouraging. 
In 1996, in an effort to bridge the gap between the single purpose and the multi-purpose factions, Morgan Dawn and Megan Kent role played the debate in front of a live fan audience at Virgule convention: 
In the end, until the fannish community comes to terms with the fact that reviews are not part of an singular conversation with a single goal in mind, the debate and discussion and review of reviews is not likely to end soon.
==Review Zines==
It was common practice to include a few reviews or letters of comment at the back of many fanzines. Sometimes the reviews would be for zines from entirely different fandoms than those appearing in the zine. Letterzines or APAs would also contain reviews (see Jundland Wastes and Southern Enclave).
Fanzines that focused primarily on fanzine reviews:
*The Fanzine Review Zine (1976)
*The Hologram (QL, 1994-2000)
*IMHO (Blake's 7 reviewzine) (B7, 1994)
*Psst... Hey Kid, Wanna Buy a Fanzine?
*Review Zine (Australian reviewzine) #1-47 (?-1997)
*Scuttlebutt (1970s)
==Review mailing lists & websites==
*Gen Fic Crit Mailing List (2001-2007)
*Ishi72's Zine Recommendations and Reviews (2002)
* Raonaid's 'Zine Reviews (2000)
*Hatstand Fanzine Reviews at Hatstand Archive (Professionals) (2010)
*Lynn's Zine Reviews (Blake's 7, Sentinel, MUNCLE, multi-media, Professionals, and X-Files) (2002)
==Review Communities==
*The Cuttingboard - "A discussion community for SGA fanfic" on LiveJournal, active from 2005-2007, founded by Carolyn Claire, briefly succeeded in 2010 by The Comfy Chair on DreamWidth.
*SGA Talk - "Discussions of Stargate Atlantis fanfic" community on LiveJournal, active from 2007 - 2009, founded by lunabee34, beadattitude, and lyrstzha.
*reviewsanon - founded in November 2011, multifandom anonymous fic reccing and reviewing community on LiveJournal.
*Manifesto on Moral Mansex - yaoi and BL comic reviews.
*Tapuz Fanfics and Fanarts Forum, a Hebrew-language forum for review of submitted fanart and fanfic.
==Further Reading/Meta==
* And now, be prepared for something I've never done in print: BLOWN MY STACK! by Trisha Kehoe (June 1994)
* Things I've Learned About Reviewing: archive link, post by hector rashbaum (April 2007)
* , post by painless j (April 2006)
* Ruminations on good manners; archive link page 1; archive link page 2, Diana Williams (November 17, 2006)
==References==
Category:Non-fiction WritingCategory:2017 Featured Articles