Writing the Fanzine Review

Meta
Title:	Writing the Fanzine Review
Creator:	Nancy Kippax
Date(s):	1980
Medium:	print
Fandom:
Topic:
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Writing the Fanzine Review is a 1980 essay by Nancy Kippax.

It was printed in Stylus #1.

While the fandom discussed is Star Trek: TOS, this is mainly because that was the focus of the vast majority of media zines at the time, and therefore, this zine's audience.

Some Topics Discussed

• what a review should and shouldn't have
• writing reviews can a creative outlet that is pleasing and exciting
• fans were leery of reviews due to a then-recent unpleasant one done by a professional reviewer of Star Trek: The Motion Picture

From the Essay

Examination of recent available reviews shows a saddening lack of properly written zine critiques, and we'd like to remedy that situation. Did you know, for example, that the novel, NIGHTVISIONS, quite popular, sold out, never received a printed review. Several years ago, Lori Chapek tried something new - it was called "The Fanzine Review Zine", but it fizzled out after about two issues. Just as zine editors chaff at a lack of honest, in-depth LoCs, they are equally frustrated by official silence on what they have labored to produce.

Who is qualified to write a review? Anyone-editor,writer,reader, who has consumed a vast number of fanzines, who knows what to look for when evaluating quality, who can be fair, impartial, and most of all helpful. There is, believe it or not, a special technique to reviewing, and some times, unfortunately, instead of a review we're given only a plot synopsis

or a personal diatribe of love or hate. That is not a review.

What constitutes a review? To be complete, a review must encompass all areas. That's not to say that it should mention every story and every poem by name and author. (That's an ad, not a review!) But major offerings should be evaluated, along with artwork, graphics, quality of printing, attention to detail, the amount of editing that went into the completed work.

A review should be personal: If there was a particular story or stories that affected you, either positively or negatively, say so. You should, however, be prepared to state why you liked or disliked these items, and your statement should be predicated on valid evidence. (We all remember the stupid charges by a national reviewer of ST:TMP, who found a "flaw" in the movie because he thought the Klingons were aliens who inhabited the cloud!) If you felt that a particular artist outdid them self, say so.

The purpose of a review is two-fold: You are informing other fans who have not purchased and read the zine what to expect. You are also judging the efforts of the editor, publicly. Some valuable criticism is good, although sometimes a personal LoC might serve to clear up misunderstandings or answer questions. It's far better to communicate directly with the people involved than to find yourself contradicted by other fans after you've committed your opinion to print.

If you have valid criticism, speak out: Some people, however, thrive on controversy and like to fan the flames of discontent. They're a minority, but they do exist. Always remember that we're all amateurs, all doing what we do for the personal enjoyment of it. Some people's feelings bruise easily, especially newcomers, so be gentle. Personally, I hate to read or write a totally negative review, whether it's a zine I have any connection with or not. It is also true that many fans have become quite skeptical about critics in general after the pitiful press coverage of ST-TMP can can be overdone.

The length of a review is important: Worse, perhaps, than the negative review is the one that doesn't say anything, or fails to consider all the facets of the zine. You cannot possibly critique a 200 page anthology zine in half a page. I've seen 100+ novellas reviewed in two paragraphs. This format is totally unacceptable. Usually there is little or no mention of graphics, layout, presentation, and only a few words about the artwork.