4 Writing Critiques and Reviews 4a. Developing a ...college.cengage.com/english/dodds/ready_reference... · Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman

Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman

444 Writing Critiques and Reviews

4a. Developing a Perspective on Critiques and

Reviews

1. The Aims of Critiques and Reviews Critics criticize. But their role involves more than complaining and bad mouthing. The word “critic” comes from the Greek kritikós, meaning skilled in judging. It is related to other words meaning to separate or decide. Critics may just as well praise as condemn. When you write as a critic, you do the kind of critical thinking described in Chapter 1 of The Ready Reference Handbook as you classify what you’re criticizing, compare it to related topics, evaluate it, and sometimes make recommendations. Here is another misunderstanding about critics: Mention the word “evaluate” and some people think of opinions and the phrase, “Well, it’s only my opinion, but . . .” It’s easy to imagine a critic’s business as little more than expressing “personal opinions”--quirky, half-baked impressions biased by habits of subjective preference. But look again at the definition of critics and criticism. To be skilled in judging means more than having opinions; it means having the experience necessary for sound judgment. Good critics have been playing their role long enough to know first hand and in detail the subjects they criticize. And they know how to criticize because they know what standards of value apply to their subjects. Standards of value are yardsticks, points of comparison, or principles of ethical behavior, usefulness, or art that help them measure their subjects and decide whether they’re good, bad, or middling. They are not matters of personal preference; they are objective, public standards of good taste critics often share with one another and their audiences. Listen to essayist Mark Kramer evaluate American tomatoes grown for mass consumption:

Tomatoes we remember from the past tasted rich, delicate, and juicy. Tomatoes hauled home in today’s grocery bag taste bland, tough, and dry. The new taste is the taste of modern agriculture.

--“The Ruination of the Tomato,” from The Atlantic Monthly Kramer dislikes modern tomatoes not because he ate stewed tomatoes when he was a child or because they give him hives, but because they don’t meet his standards for good tomatoes. Do you share his standards of taste and texture? If so, then you probably judge modern, commercially grown tomatoes the same way. Now listen to student Donald Woodson critique the design of contemporary American suburbs:


The suburb near Chicago where I live, and most other suburbs where I’ve lived or visited, illustrate the paradox of modern American life. On the one hand, they dramatize the democratic dream to live as well as the next person, to breathe free, and to create, if only a quarter acre in size, space for individual identity. On the other hand, in the monotonous reductions of suburban architecture, in the disconnections of subdivision streets and cul-de-sacs, in the rigid conformity on sale in mall after mall, and in the bland food served in the cutesy theme restaurants attached to these malls, American suburbs simultaneously dramatize the betrayal of that dream.

Did you identify this writer’s standards? The good American community expresses the values of freedom, individual identity, community connection, and variety of experience. When you write as a critic, as these writers have done, you apply relevant standards of value that you share with others to present a topic and see how it measures up.

2. Assignments: The Critical Writer’s Options Criticism is an activity we’re involved in every day--as men and women who want to do the right thing, as consumers interested in the quality of goods we buy, as spectators and performers who value good performances of all kinds, as creatures who seek the pleasures of life. And the critical writing assignments you might do reflect this variety in your life. The critical essay. This kind of critique is written in school, especially in liberal arts courses, and also appears in books and magazines and on the Internet. Its subjects are widely varied. Almost always, however, the critical essay looks and sounds like a thesis-support essay. Its thesis is a statement of evaluation; its support consists of the facts, details, and comparisons showing whether the subject being evaluated meets or fails to meet specific standards of value. Writing about people. Whether written on the job, in school, or for publication, there are two kinds of critical writing about people. An encomium is an essay of praise, named after the ancient Greek songs in honor of heroes. It extols the virtues and extraordinary deeds of individuals or groups, illustrating what is meritorious about them. A negative essay about people is a reproach. Sometimes addressed to the individuals or groups criticized, a reproach calls people to account for wrongful words and deeds, describes their failure of vision, performance, or responsibility, and sometimes even attempts to make them feel ashamed. Travel writing. Although travel writers inevitably write about journeys taken, they emphasize not the journey itself, as they would if writing as autobiographers. Instead, they emphasize their destination and impressions of the place--positive or negative. The secret to effective travel writing is making readers imagine they’ve arrived with you at your destination. By inviting them to join you in their imaginations, you’ll help them decide whether they’d like to travel there in person. You don’t have to tell everything about the place--your readers don’t want you to. What they want is that you capture what the ancient Romans called the “genius” of the place, the unique spirit that sets one place apart from another.


The review. The reviews you’ll most likely read and write are book, movie, drama, music, restaurant, performance, and product reviews. As a reviewer, you’ll provide readers with anticipatory experiences: what it would be like if they read the book, saw the movie, heard the music, ate at the restaurant, or used the product you’ve written about. They expect detailed description of the experiences and impressions, as well as frequent comparisons to similar books, movies, musicians, restaurants, and products to see how they measure up. And they expect that you’ll judge your subject according to familiar standards that, for the most part, they share.

Movie and drama reviews. When you review a movie or drama, you evaluate plot, character, casting, acting, setting and staging, music, technical features like color, lighting, and special effects, the “message” of the movie or play, its effect on audiences, its fulfillment of its intentions and the conventions of the genre. (For principles of visual design that will help you analyze and evaluate movies and plays, see 1c of The Ready Reference Handbook.)

Book reviews. If you evaluate a work of fiction, describe the same story-telling

features you would in a movie review. If the work you review is non-fiction, consider the reliability and appropriateness of its facts, its thoroughness, its depth, originality, fairness, and style.

Scholarly reviews. Also referred to as a “review of the literature,” a scholarly

review is a version of the book review. For a scholarly review, describe in detail a book or article you’ve chosen (subject matter, author’s purpose, main points or questions, the support for the writer’s ideas, organization, the author’s theoretical perspective and values, any significant omissions, and the writer’s style). Then evaluate each of the features you’ve described and make an over-all estimation of the work’s value.

Music reviews. Whether you review a recording or live performance, evaluate the

compositions, the skill of the performers, and how well the performance was produced.

Restaurant reviews. When you write a restaurant review, not only describe a typical meal at a restaurant your audience might consider visiting; also comment on the atmosphere, service, and price of the meal.

Product reviews. To write a product review, describe how well something performs,

whether it does what is advertised, how well it compares to similar products, whether it’s worth its price tag.


4b. “Inventing” a Critique or Review

1. Choosing a Topic and Evaluating Your Credentials If you have a choice of topics for your critique but are unsure what to choose, do a freewriting. Begin: “Let’s see, I have strong opinions about [list topics about which you have strong opinions].” Then record your feelings, knowledge, and experiences with the topics you’ve listed. (For more on freewriting, see The Ready Reference Handbook, 2a5.) Choose to critique something you know well from experience or observation. As topics come to mind, make a self-evaluation. Do you have the direct experiences with your topic and background information to make judgments? Do you have experiences broad enough to make informed comparisons? How can you evaluate a Vietnamese restaurant, for example, if you have been to only one? How can you evaluate the safety of nuclear power plants if you understand little about plant design, the production of electrical power, and the disposal of nuclear wastes? If you respond negatively to your self-evaluation, you’ll have to get the information and experience you need--or find a new topic.

2. Gathering Materials for a Critique Exploring your experiences. When you’ve found a topic, begin gathering your materials with another freewriting. Record the details of your experiences with your topic and your feelings about it. Create “word-pictures” and choose words with connotative meaning. State your over-all impressions; remember the small details and experiences that created your impressions. Doing “on the job” research and taking notes. If possible, re-experience your topic and make close observation: Reread the book, see the movie again, listen to the record, eat at the restaurant, visit the place you’re evaluating, and so forth. Gather the background information you need to understand or explain your subject. Take notes. (For more on note-taking, see The Ready Reference Handbook, 49b, c, and d.) Answer the following questions; if necessary, adapt them to your topic.

What is my subject, exactly? What is it for--its function, purpose, or motive? Does it fulfill its intentions?

What standards help me know whether my subject is good, bad, or middling?

What specific details show how my subject measures up to my standards?

To what does it compare favorably or unfavorably?


What do others say about my subject? How do their experiences and judgments compare with mine?

What are my purposes in writing--to review, evaluate and explain, or evaluate and

recommend?

What does my audience know about my subject? What will I have to explain?

What are my credentials for evaluating this subject? Will readers want to know them before they accept my judgments?

3. Focusing a Critique Writing a dominant impression. When you’ve gathered the materials for your critique, make a “pluses-and-minuses” list to help you arrive at a sound dominant impression. Don’t always trust first impressions. This list, together with your standards of value, may urge you to revise first impressions and come to a fairer, more insightful dominant impression. As your impression takes shape, write it out. As the thesis for your critique, it should be clear, precise, and complete.

“My dominant impression of [your subject] is that he/she/it is . . . I feel this way because . . .”

Here, for example, is a surprising impression that unifies an essay in praise of the great physicist Albert Einstein:

He was one of the greatest scientists the world has ever known, yet if I had to convey the essence of Albert Einstein in a single word, I would choose simplicity.

--Banesh Hoffman, “The Unforgettable Albert Einstein,” from The Reader’s Digest

And here is a negative impression, in which a student reviewer evaluates American fast food:

Heavy with saturated fats, laced with all kinds of additives to hide the mechanized conditions of its production, frequently tainted with disease-causing agents--the American fast food meal is really a kind of anti-food. Eat it on a regular basis, as many American do, and instead of nourishing yourself, you’ll make yourself unhealthy, even sick.

--Keri Gregorio (For more on thesis statements and similar unifying assertions, see The Ready Reference Handbook, 2d.) Creating figurative language to dramatize your impression. As you form a dominant impression, use the formula in the “How to Create Similes and Metaphors” box in 26c of The Ready Reference Handbook to create metaphors, similes, and analogies to describe your subject


and dramatize your impressions. For example, note how student Donald Woodson creates an analogy to dramatize the process of suburban development and expansion:

To understand suburban sprawl and the harm it causes, imagine a formless, one-celled organism that lives and nourishes itself by devouring dirt. For that is what developers do as they prepare the site for a new subdivision or mall: First they chew up all the top soil, too valuable to be buried under concrete or black top, pile it up at the edges of their sites, and then sell it back to those who wish to buy--or haul it off to be sold elsewhere. To develop or expand a suburb is to consume and eliminate what is essential to life.


4c. Planning a Critique or Review

1. Organizing The critical essay. Critical essays usually unfold according to a logical pattern:

A detailed description of the subject to be evaluated.

Often simultaneously, an evaluation of what is right or wrong about the subject according to relevant standards.

An evaluation of how this subject has come to its present status.

Writing about people. Whether you write an essay of praise (an encomium) or an essay of blame (a reproach), organize logically, according to the praise- or blameworthy traits you’re describing, or chronologically, by telling a story that dramatizes how your chosen person’s behavior supports your dominant impression. Travel writing. Organize your critique chronologically, as an itinerary readers might follow if they took a journey like yours, or descriptively, according to the scenes, vignettes, and details that support your dominant impression. The review. Organize your review according to a part-by-part evaluation of the most important features of your topic.

The movie or drama review. Open by identifying the kind of movie or play, state your dominant impression, give the gist of the plot (without giving too much away!), and then evaluate your chosen work feature-by-feature.

The book review and scholarly review. Open with an introduction that states

your dominant impression; provide the book’s aims, purposes, and audience; present background information about the work and its composition; and then make a detailed evaluation of the features of the work.

The restaurant review. After an opening that identifies the restaurant and states

your dominant impression, describe the atmosphere; then focus on the quality, variety, appearance, aromas, textures, and flavors of the food; indicate the quality of service and tell whether the meals are worth the prices; evaluate the extent to which the restaurant fulfills its intentions. Close with information about location, hours, reservations, dress requirements, and so forth.

The Product review. Begin by describing the product and then explain how you

made your evaluation. Describe the product feature by feature, making sure that you


judge how well it does what it intends to do, how easy or comfortable it is to use, its cost of operation, optional equipment, reliability, durability, appearance, and price. Make your review useful by comparing your product to similar products that are clearly better or worse.

2. Planning an Introduction and Conclusion Plan an introduction that identifies your subject, brings it to life, and states your dominant impression. Watch how a student reviewer opens her review of the Steve Martin comedy Roxanne:

Released in 1987 and long available on cassette or DVD, Roxanne is an easy movie to miss at your local video store. To find it, you’ll have to hunt for it far from the “new release” section, deep in the middle of the Comedy section, probably at the bottom of the Steve Martin rack. But hunt for it you should. For if you miss this movie, you’ll be missing a warm, funny, old-fashioned love story updated and given all sorts of hilarious twists by writer-producer Martin.

--Lisa Larsen With her clear dominant impression in the last sentence, readers know this writer’s opinion at the outset--and also her larger point, that this is one movie often overlooked. Once you’ve introduced your topic in this way, you’ll be ready to support your impression in the body of your critique. At its end, restate your impression in fresh language or find a way to dramatize it for emphasis, as Lisa Larsen does in her final paragraph:

This wise, warm, funny, movie is just right for a great date-night-at-home video, for anyone who likes wit along with sight gags and slapstick, for viewers who want romance that carries us away to a magical land where real people live. Don’t miss it.

(For more on introductions and conclusions, see The Ready Reference Handbook, 6c and d.)


4d. Writing and Revising a Critique or Review

1. Creating Your Persona In the first draft of your critique, focus attention in two places, on your subject and your impressions of it. Whether you refer to yourself as an “I,” you’ll put a lot of yourself into your writing: your knowledge, experience, enthusiasms--whatever is relevant to your evaluation. To create a persona readers will enjoy, find a voice appropriate for praise or blame, but avoid the gush of excessive praise or the thin-lipped fury of excessive blame. Unless you’re trying for humor or irony--neither easy to bring off in critical writing--understatement is generally more effective than overstatement. After all, you may not have seen it yet, but there’s surely something, somewhere, more praise- or blameworthy than your subject. Take a “we” attitude toward your readers. Talk to them directly, as “we” or “you.” If you can, be clear that you share their standards and interests, that your praise or blame is what they would offer in similar circumstances. Here is where comparisons, drawing upon shared experience, can ally you with readers. Quotations of other observers, people like your readers, will show them you’re not alone in your opinions. And always, anchor your judgments with concrete details.

2. Paragraphing in Critiques Critical paragraphs usually follow the same pattern found in thesis-support essays: an assertion, in this case a judgment or impression, followed by facts or observation, then illustration or explanation. Watch how this student travel-writer evaluates France, the French, and many first-time travelers’ mistaken stereotypes:

Many Americans visit France for the first time carrying with them some heavy mental baggage about the French. The French, they imagine, are snobbish. They’re rude. They didn’t support us during the Iraq War. They know how to speak English but won’t, yet they’ll correct even the tiniest error when you try to talk French to them. With such stereotypes, no wonder many Americans return home with pretty photographs but unpleasant memories. The truth is, the French are among the most friendly people on earth; since tourism is France’s major industry, they’d better be. But if not shy, they are just a little bit reserved when greeted by us abrupt and sometimes loud Americans. When a French person, however, senses a visitor’s openness, he or she almost always responds with warmth and kindness. Last summer, two friends and I, in the city of Amiens north of Paris, went to a French supermarket for picnic ingredients. Here, as in so many other parts of France, we


found that most French did not speak much English--just as most Americans don’t speak French. We stood for long minutes at the butcher’s counter, gazing at an appetizing array of sausages. I thumbed through my French phrase book, struggling for the right words to tell what I wanted. I opened my mouth and tried to speak. I fumbled. I stumbled. I started again. Then suddenly, a tall blond butcher stepped in front of her shorter co-workers and announced in English both halting and ten times more fluent than my French: “Put your book away, Mademoiselle! I will help you!” And help she did--guiding us to the tastiest sausage and then, from one part of the store to the next, to the most full-flavored cheese, the chewiest bread, and the richest wine. Yes, along the way she and her co-workers corrected the French of my friends and me, but in a manner both proud and helpful, like a parent who wanted her children to do their best.

--Rebecca Mocas After an opening description of the stereotypes she will correct, the writer follows with a topic sentence about French friendliness and supports it with a personal anecdote from her own travels. (For more on effective paragraphing, see The Ready Reference Handbook, 5a and b.)

3. Choosing Critical Words Your greatest challenge as a critical writer is to present your judgment in more than judgmental words, such as beautiful, terrible, ugly, wonderful, and so forth. These words tell your readers little except that you like or don’t like the subject of your composition. To make your critique successful, look for concrete, “word picture” words whose denotative and connotative meanings dramatize your subject and suggest your experience of it, as writer Rebecca Mocas does in her story of the friendly French butchers. Her judgment words--“warmth,” “kindness,” and “appetizing array”--are few, but the descriptive words are so strong in their connotations that the paragraph praises its subject almost without seeming to try. The critical experience comes alive in the language that describes it. Make your critical descriptions equally vivid. (For more on effective word choice, see The Ready Reference Handbook, Chaps. 25 and 26.)


4. A Revision Checklist Be sure you’ve described vividly, so readers can share your impressions. Look for

judgment words unsupported by facts and details. If you can’t support them, cut them and modify your dominant impression.

If you see any words that could appear in an advertisement for your subject, cut them.

You don’t want your readers to think you’re in sales; you want them to trust you.

Make sure you’ve compared your subject to other subjects your readers are familiar with, so they can see how it measures up.

Make sure your dominant impression is clear and forceful. Don’t distort or overstate,

but avoid qualifiers like “seems,” “perhaps,” and “may.”

Be sure you’ve judged your subject according to standards that are objective, relevant, and consistent.

Check your persona. Do you sound fair, without undue bias? If your judgments are

negative, beware of name-calling. If your judgments are positive, beware of platitudes and sentimentality.

5. Questions for Peer Reviewers of Critiques Writers: If you’re passing out copies of your writing for peer reviewers to read, number your paragraphs to make your critique easy to discuss. Then make a brief introduction:

1. Identify your audience--your intended readers. 2. Identify the kind of critique you’ve written: a critical essay, an essay about a person

(encomium or reproach), a travel essay, a review.

3. Describe your intentions. “In my critique I’m trying to tell/show. . . .” 4. Tell your peer reviewers about the feedback you want from them. Ask questions,

describe problems, or pose alternative solutions for which you want opinions. Then take notes as you listen to this feedback. Use the your reviewers’ suggestions where they’re helpful, but remember, this is your critique. It should say what you want.


Peer reviewers: Answer the following questions to help this writer see his/her critique clearly and begin planning revisions.

1. Does the critique have a clear dominant impression statement? Point it out or summarize it. Is it clear and precise? Does it make a thorough judgment that accounts for all important features of the writer’s topic? What changes would make this dominant impression more effective?

2. Describe the writer’s persona. Does this writer sound like a fair critic that readers could

trust? Point out judgments that seem unfair, either unsupported or exaggerated.

3. Summarize the writer’s standards of value for evaluating his or her topic. Are they appropriate to the topic, objective rather than subjectively personal, and complete? Can you suggest additional standards of value?

4. Has the writer provided all the description, comparison, background information,

quotation, explanation, and visual materials necessary to support his or her dominant impression? Point out any places where the writer’s judgments are insufficiently supported or where the writer uses “judgment words” without details to back them up.

5. Does the critique contain all the parts you expect to find in a critical essay, an essay

about a person, a travel essay, or a review? Point out omissions or places where the writer needs to say more.

6. Could you follow this critique from start to finish? Point out places where you got lost.

7. Does the introduction make the critique sound interesting, identify the topic, and at least

hint at the writer’s dominant impression?


4e. Student Examples—Writing a Critique or Review

1. Television News: Only One Version of Reality (a critical essay) ASSIGNMENT: Write a critical essay in which you present an argument regarding the effect that media have on today’s society.

Television News: Only One Version of Reality

by Hiroko Morii Today, television news, especially prime-time news, is indispensable to our lives. If we

turn on the television set and tune to CNN headline news, Fox News, or one of the network

stations, we can learn about all the significant events of the day within thirty minutes. We might

think we don’t need other news sources, such as newspapers, anymore. However, it is dangerous

to reply on television news blindly. Although it shows us the events in the world with many

moving images in an orderly manner, the facts it shows us are not the entire facts, but just

fragments or parts of them that people involved in the television news industry (hereinafter

referred to as “news people”) choose for us, the viewers. Unfortunately, we often overlook this

important fact.

There seem to be two causes for our oversight. One is that news degrades our ability to

think. We unconsciously stop thinking while watching newscasts: we have no time to think

about each news story because we are forced to make a hurried, superficial tour of the world to

catch up with the stories that change rapidly. News people usually cram in as many news stories

as they can to inform us of all significant events in the world within a limited span of time.

Therefore, as Neil Postman mentions in his essay “The News,” all stories are “unconnected to

each other or to any sense of a history unfolding” (80). We store those stories in our memory

banks so that we can analyze, connect, classify, and evaluate them later. Only through this


process can we realize that news stories show us just a part of the facts. However, we rarely

have enough time to go through the process; consequently, there is slight chance of our realizing

the truth held in the news.

The other cause is our impression that news always shows us truth. With this unconscious

trust in news, we easily believe all broadcast stories are the entire facts. However, the truth is

that what is broadcast is what news people want to show us. All news stories coming from all

over the world are screened, and only the stories that those people think appeal to or interest

viewers most are picked up. We watch only the news “produced” by news people. Although

they know they must eliminate prejudice and selfish motives in this “producing” process, it is

very difficult to give them up completely. Even if they can achieve this, what aspect of a piece

of news is chosen might vary in different situations. When a big event occurs, it is usual that

several reports, each of which focuses on the different aspects of the event, are sent to new

stations from the spot. However, news people must decide which report they adopt because the

time for broadcasting is limited. As Av Westin, the executive producer of ABC News in the

1980s, says in his Newswatch,” television news operates on the basis of elimination rather than

inclusion” (62). Then how do they choose the most appropriate report (or reports)? In other

words, how are news stories produced?

Let us suppose that a chemical plan has exploded, and the explosion has killed and

injured workers. One report might feature the burning plant, and the other might show the scene

of rescued workers hugging their families tightly. If the explosion is the only big event of the

day, the former report would be chosen because the roaring flame and thick clouds of black

smoke make a good spectacle. However, if all other news stories are depressing, gloomy ones,

the latter might be chosen. No viewer likes continuous tension. He or she unconsciously wants

alternation of tension and relaxation. News people always keep this in mind when they choose


reports. Consequently, viewers see news stories that have been based on fragmentary reports.

They would never see the eliminated reports.

Let me give you another example of news production. The shooting at Columbine High

School in Littleton, Colorado, shook the whole country. In the news about this massacre, an

injured boy who was asking for help while leaning out a broken window, parents and their

children who were hugging each other tightly, and parents who were looking half-crazily for

their children appeared on the television screen again and again. However, dead bodies never

appeared on the screen. Probably, the news people thought such a scene would appeal to viewers

too much: they might have been afraid that it would let viewers feel strong loathing and would

arouse their antagonism. Among the reports that were left out of the broadcasts, there also might

be an image of the surrounding neighborhood, which would help us know that the scene of the

crime was the normal, peaceful suburbs. Such an image appeals to viewers less than the

dramatic scenes actually shown in the news.

In addition, we, the viewers must know that news people, who should take an objective

position, might prepare their reports with specific political or nationalistic motives, regardless of

whether they realize it or not: they might choose reports which lead us to the conclusion

favorable to them. Think back to a series of news reports covering NATO air strikes during the

war in Yugoslavia. You must have seen attacks by bombers, soldiers caught by Serb troops, or

Albanian refugees driven out of their Serb troops, or Albanian refugees driven out of their homes

in Kosovo on the television screen many times. However, have you seen Serbs who were

frightened by NATO attacks or NATO-destroyed buildings as many times as you saw those

scenes? Maybe not. It is natural that news people, as American citizens, don’t want to think

NATO air forces threaten or kill unarmed Serb citizens, and thus they unconsciously eliminate or

shorten the images of Serb people suffering from NATO attacks. However, viewers who watch


news stories chosen with such unconscious prejudices might judge whether NATO’s military

action is right or wrong only from those stories.

When we express our opinions about serious affairs, we usually search our memory

banks for news stories helpful to us. The most dangerous thing is that we believe we form fair

judgments, considering all aspects of events, even though we have seen only a few specifically

selected aspects. This misunderstanding itself is not so dangerous as long as it is limited to

individual opinion. However, when the individual opinions are put together and become public

opinion, this wrong impression can be a menace to our society because the public opinion has

force that moves not only our country but also the entire world. In addition, who can be sure that

the movers and shakers of our economy or politics never err in their judgment in the critical

situation where their judgment would decide the fate of our country? We must realize that news

shows are just a part of each event in the world. Av Westin himself admits that “if you rely only

on the television newscast, you are woefully ignorant” (58) and says “[newspapers, news radio

broadcasts, news magazine, books on current affairs] must be relied on if one is to be truly

informed” (57-8). Otherwise, before long, we will come to be governed by the news, without

being aware of it.

WORKS CITED Westin, Av. Newswatch: How TV Decides the News. New York: Simon and Schuster. Postman, Neil. “The News.” Conscientious Objections: Stirring up Trouble about Language,

Technology, and Education. New York: Vintage Books.


2. One Fine Romance (a movie review) ASSIGNMENT: Review a movie of interest to college students. Choose something available for rental or purchase on videocassette or DVD. Make a recommendation, positive or negative.

One Fine Romance

by Leslie Kelly Released in 1987, long available on video and now on DVD, Roxanne is an easy movie

to miss at your local video store. To find it, you may have to hunt for it far from the “new

release” section, deep in the middle of the Comedy section, probably at the bottom of the Steve

Martin rack. But hunt for it you should. For if you miss this movie, you’re really missing

something.

For one thing, you’re missing a warm, funny, old-fashioned love story updated and given

all sorts of hilarious twists by writer-producer Martin. If you were awake in high school English

class, you may recognize that Roxanne is based on that version of the eternal triangle dramatized

in Cyrano de Bergerac. Martin plays C. D. Bales (get those initials?), small town fire chief and

possessor of one large nose. No, it’s more than large. As one character exclaims, “It’s big! I

mean it’s really big! It’s huge!” C. D. falls in love with the beautiful Roxanne Kowalski (Daryl

Hannah), graduate student astronomer in town for the summer, but she falls for C. D.’s

blindingly handsome, inarticulate assistant Chris (Rick Rossovich), just arrived to help C. D.

train his troop of volunteer fire fighters. Believing himself ugly, unwilling to express his love, C.

D. finds himself approached first by Roxanne to help her meet Chris and then by Chris to arrange

a meeting with Roxanne.

All of the plot complications and most of the laughs come from jokes involving C. D.’s

nose and from his attempts to help Chris win Roxanne’s heart. Nose insults, slamming doors, and

some trouble drinking wine alternate with C. D.’s increasingly hilarious schemes to give Chris

the wit and charm Roxanne desires in her lover. What she really wants, of course, is the mind of


one man and the body of the other. But three into two won’t go. Not when C. D. coaches Chris

what to say, not when he writes Chris’s letters, not even when he tries to communicate the right

words of love to Chris through an earphone hidden by a hunter’s hat with the earflaps pulled

down. Not until C. D. stands in for Chris during the funniest balcony scene you’ll ever see does

Roxanne surrender and Chris call out, “She wants us!”

But more is going on here than a wacky love story that takes its comic energies from two

flawed suitors and one heroine who doesn’t know what she really wants in a man. Early in the

movie, C. D. walks out of a café, stops before a newspaper vending box, drops in a coin, pulls

out the paper, begins to read, cries out in alarm, reaches for another coin, drops it in the box and

returns the paper. Through this small episode the movie tells us that Roxanne inhabits a different

world from the real world of woe we read about in the papers. If you miss Roxanne, you’ll miss

a magic world of romance, a world of real people but with its own laws of comic joy and poetic

justice, where things turn out as happily as they should and as we wish they would in our far

different world.

The setting, supposedly ski-country Nelson, Washington, but actually British Columbia,

is a mountain-sheltered contemporary romantic retreat, everyone’s dream of an idyllic

community. There is no pollution, no poverty, no crime, endless leisure, and only a few

insensitive types in town on vacation, easily bested by C. D.’s wit and fencing skills with a

racquetball racket. Except for C. D.'s friend and café owner Dixie (Shelley Duvall), the only

characters who do any work are the volunteer fire fighters. Led by whimsically sly and

subversive Michael J. Pollard, these good-hearted bumblers, who can’t even coax a cat out of a

tree, recall the gentlest of Shakespeare’s clowns and fools. Fumbling with their equipment,

falling over one another, blown over by hoses, hoisted on fountains of water, setting themselves

on fire, almost destroying their firehouse, they never will master fire fighting, it seems. That is,

until the climax when, dancing a fire fighter’s ballet, they save the day.


Magical in another way is Daryl Hannah’s Roxanne. Dressed in white, her frank, open

features framed by radiant hair, photographed to soften her angular figure, Hannah is at her most

attractive best here. She makes it easy to believe that, as she says, she has mistaken sex for love

in a past affair. Her role in the plot is to discover the difference. Prizing intelligence and wit as

much as physical strength and attractiveness, Hannah’s Roxanne is a character too seldom the

romantic attraction in American movies directed at young people—a woman who combines

body, mind, and soul and who values that combination in her man. She may not have the mental

fire and sharp wit of old-time romantic heroines like Katherine Hepburn, but Hannah is more

than adequate for this role.

Most magical of all is Steven Martin’s C. D. Bales. Martin seems more relaxed here than

in his earlier movies about divided or incomplete persons: The Jerk, The Man with Two Brains,

and All of Me. Perhaps because he is so comfortable in his role he is able to harmonize many

different forms of comedy and make them work naturally together. If you’re a fan of movie

comedians through the years, you’ll see Martin pay tribute here to the Three Stooges, the Marx

Brothers, W. C. Fields, and Buster Keaton. But he also combines wit with a dancer’s grace—in

the way he fights his foes, walks on rooftops, and swings from balcony railings—so that he

recalls Fred Astaire. Martin is capable of Robin Williams’ hyperkinetic action but without the

sweat or hyperventilation.

So at home is he in his role that he becomes C. D. Bales, a complex human being. He

never suggests that he is merely extending a Saturday Night Live sketch, making fun of another

“wild and crazy guy.” Unlike so many comedians these days, Martin doesn’t punish his character

with comedy. We laugh with him, not at him. The only objects of our scorn and his comic wrath

are the insensitive brutes who insult his nose and threaten him with ski poles. There is real pain

in his eyes from living with a nose so outrageously long (the make-up is very good, by the way).


Better than anyone else, he knows the worst nose jokes that could ever be told at his expense—

and he tells them. He has turned to laughter and fighting skills as his best defenses.

But what the film also shows is how a person’s greatest flaw may also become his

greatest strength. C. D.’s nose saves the town, literally, since this fire fighter can smell smoke

long before he or anyone else can see the flames. And living with his nose has given him the wit,

sensitivity, and intelligence that eventually win Roxanne’s love. When at last she discovers that

it is his words that have wooed her in balcony declarations and love letters, she speaks what in

others’ mouths would be the greatest insult: “You’ve got a big nose, Charlie!” But when she

utters them, they are words of acceptance, of recognition that he is loved not in spite of his flaw

but because of it.

This wise, warm, funny, movie is just right for a great date-night-at-home video, for

anyone who likes wit along with sight gags and slapstick, for viewers who want romance that

carries us away to a magical land where real people live. Don’t miss it.


3. The Siam Café (a restaurant review) ASSIGNMENT: Review a restaurant the fits a college student’s budget. Choose one that he or she may not have visited. Make a recommendation, positive or negative.

The Siam Café

by Alfredo Guzman Some suburban Harper College students won’t go into Chicago for love or money—

certainly not for an evening’s entertainment or a meal. To these timid souls, ethnic food is

microwave egg rolls, a hamburger with pizza cheese, or a tortilla that tastes like it was made by

Hostess. There are, however, many Harper students who are a little more adventuresome. For

them the big city is a place to go for good fun and great food. If you’re one of them, the next

time you’re in Chicago—hungry for adventure or just plain hungry—you should try one of

Chicago’s newest cuisines and one of its best, the food of Thailand.

Suspended between India and China, Thailand has borrowed from both, especially the

curries, sweet sauces, and strong spices from India and, from China, complex ingredients, fresh

vegetables, and the wonders of wok cooking. The result is food rich in contrasting temperatures,

tastes, and textures. The best place I know to savor these contrasts is The Siam Café, just fifteen

minutes north of the Loop on Lakeshore Drive (exit at Wilson Avenue, drive three blocks west to

Sheridan Road, turn north one block, and you’ve arrived). There, in the middle of inauspicious,

“urban renewal” Uptown, you’ll find some of the most flavorful and least expensive food you’ll

ever enjoy.

As soon as you open the door, you know you’re not in one of those trendy but bland

pretend-ethnic restaurants. In the foyer, posters written in intricate Thai script announce Thai

golf outings, businesses, and social events, all suggesting the large Thai community in

metropolitan Chicago. An anteroom furnished with straight chairs, plants, and Thai wood

statuary tells you The Siam Café has a thriving takeout business—a clue to its quality. The large


dining room is divided in the middle by a trellis, the seating is primarily in booths for four, and

the oak-paneled and poster-hung walls have that earnest “home-decorating” look. The customers

are a mixed crew: Latinos, African-Americans, Thais, Chinese, Indians, and southern whites

from Uptown; young urban types from Lincoln Park, New Town, and Evanston; and even groups

of seniors bussed by mini-van from Glencoe and Highland Park. Wherever they come from,

you’re not likely to hear much from them; they’re here to eat.

If you’re new to Thai food, the tall menu, half in Thai, half in English, with dozens of

strange-sounding dishes, may be baffling. The only clues to the food are stars to identify hot

dishes. But you won’t go wrong ordering what have become my favorites. Start with the most

popular Thai appetizer, Satay, here called “Siam Bar-B-Que”: tender strips of curry-marinated

pork or chicken broiled on delicate wood skewers and served with a spicy peanut sauce for

dipping. On the side are toast squares that contrast with the lacy textures of the meat and a small

cucumber, onion, and chili salad that balances the temperature of the meat. The salad dressing, a

blend of water, vinegar, and sugar, is itself a study in contrasts. Unless you eat the chilies in the

salad, satay is spicy but not hot.

A second spicy but mild appetizer is egg salad: fried egg on a bed of cucumber and

tomatoes, sprinkled with sliced scallions, crushed peanuts, and coriander and doused with a

sweet oil and red pepper sauce. A third mild appetizer is mee krob: small crispy rice noodles

deep fried in sweet oil and mixed with tiny dried shrimp. For hot appetizers, try the carrot

salad—it looks but doesn’t taste like the carrot salad your mother used to make—or yum nam

tok, lightly cooked beef salad, a mixture of tender beef, onions, lettuce, and the ubiquitous green

chilies. If Cantonese cooking is as adventuresome as you feel, The Siam Café will cook you up a

crunchy order of thin but well-packed egg rolls.

My favorite main dishes are pad Thai (here called “Thai rice sticks”) and garlic chicken,

two more good dishes for diners new to Thai food. Pad Thai is a mound of wok-fried bean


sprouts, rice noodles, tiny dried shrimp (fresh jumbo shrimp, $1.00 extra), red pepper, crushed

peanuts, and coriander, all covered with a light, sweet sauce and served with wedges of lime and

cabbage for taste and texture contrasts. Garlic chicken is a simple dish: chunks of white meat on

a bed of rice covered with garlic sauce, scallions, and coriander, accompanied by peeled

cucumber slices.

Another mild dish is wide noodles in oyster sauce: chopped greens, rice noodles, thin

slices of beef, and black beans (some say that The Siam Café serves Chicago’s best version of

this dish). A bit spicier, especially if you pour on the Tabasco-like red sauce, are fried mussels:

fried mussels mixed with fried egg and laid on a bed of bean sprouts. Cuttlefish in garlic is also

on the spicy-but-not-hot-side. If you want hot main dishes, the hottest and the best are chili

chicken, beef, or shrimp: meat topped with garlic sauce, crushed basil leaves, and fresh chilies,

all on a bed of white rice. As you take a bite then pause to wipe perspiration from your brow,

you’ll discover that chilies have flavors as well as temperatures; different kinds of chilies lend

different tastes to the foods they spice.

To cool the fire, you may want a bottle or two of Sinha, imported Thai beer. The house

white wine is good, too, but tastes more like California than Thailand. Best of all is Thai iced

coffee: dark, sweet coffee floating on heavy cream and ice cubes.

The deserts are the only disappointment to American tastes, usually sticky-sweet tarts

made from stewed fruits you’ve never seen or tasted before. The fruit should provide a welcome

balance to the spices and fire of the main dishes, but the effect is more of an apprentice Middle

Eastern pastry chef who doesn’t know how to make baklava. I usually pass on the desserts.

The food is served by a staff that will never be hired by some cutesy theme restaurant.

They are reserved, they don’t chat or shmooze, they won’t tell you their first names, and they

write your order on your ticket in Thai and serve your food as soon as it’s ready, sometimes

almost immediately, sometimes after a few minutes’ wait. Like everything and everyone else at


The Siam Café, they suggest that this is a place for eating, eating, eating, not for jawing,

gawking, or being seen.

The Siam Café is a no-nonsense-casual restaurant, sometimes crowded but rarely full. Don’t worry about reservations; even on weekends you shouldn’t have to wait for a table. And the prices are rock-bottom. Last weekend a friend and I spent $28.00, including drinks and tip. The Siam Café offers one of the cheapest great meals in town. It is located at 4712 North Sheridan Road, parking available. Hours: Monday-Thursday, noon to 10:30 p.m.; Friday, Saturday, noon to 11 p.m.; Sunday, noon to 10 p.m. Major credit cards accepted. Telephone 773-555-1652.

Documents

4 Writing Critiques and Reviews 4a. Developing a ...college.cengage.com/english/dodds/ready_reference... · Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman