Reaction Papers, Reviews, and Critiques — Comprehensive Study Notes

Reaction Papers, Reviews, and Critiques: Comprehensive Study Notes

Forms covered: reaction paper, review, and critique are specialized forms of writing in which a reviewer or reader evaluates
- a scholarly work (e.g., academic books and articles)
- a work of art (e.g., performance art, play, dance, sports, film, exhibits)
- designs (e.g., industrial designs, furniture, fashion design)
- graphic designs (e.g., posters, billboards, commercials, and digital media)
Typical length: $250\text{ to }750\text{ words}$
These forms require skills in critical thinking and recognizing arguments

What are Reaction Papers, Reviews, and Critique?

They are evaluative writings that analyze a work and present a reasoned judgment
They often involve identifying the author’s or creator’s thesis or main claim and evaluating support, evidence, and presentation
They help readers engage with material beyond passive consumption

Critical Approaches in Writing a Critique

1) Formalist criticism (formalism)

Core claim: literary works contain intrinsic properties; understanding comes from the text itself
External contexts (historical, authorial, etc.) are not necessary for interpretation
Aspects to examine:
- Author's techniques in resolving contradictions within the work
- Central passage that sums up the entirety of the work
- Contribution of parts and the whole to aesthetic quality
- Contribution of rhyme and rhythm to meaning or effect
- Relationship of form and content
- Use of imagery to develop symbols
- Interconnectedness of various parts of the work
- Paradox, ambiguity, and irony
- Unity in the work
Sample formalist critique: "Dead Stars" by Paz Marquez Benitez
- Title signals the subject; metaphor of star light and distance used to discuss Alfredo’s love for Julia
- Name symbolism: Alfredo = counselor of elves (wise) and a lawyer; ironies in his actions (covert courtship while engaged)
- Julia = youthful; Alfredo’s eight-year perception vs. reality

2) Feminist criticism (feminism)

Core claim: literature reveals oppression of women and patriarchal structures in culture
Aspects to examine:
- How culture determines gender roles
- Presentation of gender equality or its absence in the text
- Gender issues in literary works and daily life
- How women are oppressed socially, politically, psychologically, and economically by patriarchy
- The pervasiveness and power of patriarchal ideology
Sample feminist critique: of "Dead Stars"
- Power imbalance and gendered roles in Filipino society depicted
- Male leaders (Don Julian, judge) vs. women’s domestic roles
- Alfredo’s eight-year attachment to Julia creates distance from Esperanza; male dominance extends to relationship and household power
- Alfredo’s love is framed as a “dead star” — permanent memory/object rather than growth with time
- End results show male characters as dominant in household and in relationships

3) Reader response criticism

Core claim: meaning emerges through the reader’s interaction with the text; text does not have fixed meaning independent of the reader
Aspects to examine:
- Interaction between reader and text in creating meaning
- How delivery of sounds and visuals by readers affects meaning
Sample reader response critique: of "Dead Stars"
- The narrator-centered focus on Alfredo can limit understanding of Esperanza, eliciting sympathy for Esperanza from a female reader’s perspective
- Alfredo’s unfaithfulness shapes readers’ emotional responses and judgments
- Endings evoke feelings of loss and betrayal, as readers confront Alfredo’s epiphany while Esperanza remains emotionally distant

4) Marxist criticism

Core claim: economic class and capitalist structures shape experience and interpretation
Aspects to examine:
- Social class representations in the work
- Writer/creator’s own class
- Characters’ social classes and their conflicts
- Interactions across economic classes
Sample Marxist critique: of "Dead Stars"
- Imbalanced power dynamics tied to class; Calixta’s position contrasted with Alfredo and Julia
- Parallelism between Alfredo–Julia and Calixta–live-in partner; double standards in social judgment
- Calixta’s treatment contrasted with Alfredo’s freedom from accountability; class-based judgments influence receptions of fidelity

Additional critical approaches (not exhaustive)

Postmodern criticism, post-colonial criticism, structuralism, psychological criticism, gender criticism, ecocriticism, biographical criticism, historical criticism, mythological criticism, deconstructionist criticism
These approaches offer alternative lenses for critique beyond the four main ones listed above

Structure and Analysis of Critiques for Scholarly Books and Articles

Introduction (around $5\%$ of the paper)
- Title of the work
- Writer's name
- Thesis statement
Summary (around $10\%$ of the paper)
- Objective or purpose
- Methods used (if applicable)
- Major findings, claims, ideas, or messages
Review/Critique (around $75\%$ of the paper)
- Appropriateness of methodology to support arguments (for books/articles) or mode of presentation (for other works)
- Theoretical soundness and coherence of ideas
- Sufficiency and soundness of explanation in relation to other available information and experts
- Other perspectives in explaining the concepts and ideas
Guidelines for questions to ask
- Does the writer explicitly state a thesis? Are assumptions discussed?
- What are the contributions to the field? What problems and issues are discussed?
- What kinds of information are presented, and how are they used to support arguments?
- Are there alternative explanations? Is the author silent about them?
Conclusion (around $10\%$ of the paper)
- Overall impression
- Scholarly or literary value
- Benefits for the intended audience or field
- Suggestions for future research directions

Structure of a Reaction Paper, a Review, and a Critique (General Guidelines)

For other types of review, there is no prescribed structure, but the following sections are almost always present:
- Introduction
- Basic details about the material (title, director/artist, exhibition/event, etc.)
- Main assessment of the material (for films and performances)
- Plot Summary/Description
- Gist of the plot
Analysis / Interpretation
- Discussion and analysis of the work
- Questions to guide evaluation:
- Which aspects indicate success or failure?
- Were there unanswered questions or plotlines? How do they affect meaning?
- Does the work remind you of other experiences via analogies/metaphors?
- How does this contribute to meaning?
- How does the work relate to other ideas or events in the world or in your studies?
- What stood out during viewing/reading?
Conclusion / Evaluation
- Reinforcement of the main assessment
- Compare with a similar work
- Recommendation or verdict

Guidelines by Material Type

For articles or journals

Read, view, or listen to the work carefully to glean the main topic or concepts. Then revisit to identify arguments or messages.
Relate content to what you already know about the topic to enhance engagement.
Focus on how the work treats the topic, not the topic itself. Phrases like "this work presents" and "the author argues" are useful.
Situate your review by anchoring analysis in the theories presented by the writer.
Report the type of analysis or mode of presentation used and how it supports arguments.
Examine whether findings are adequately supported and how connections between ideas affect conclusions.
Suggest points for improvement of reasoning, explanation, and presentation; consider alternative methods.
Compare the writer’s explanations with those of another expert.
Point out other conclusions or interpretations the writer may have missed.
State agreement or disagreement with explanations, with justification.

For artworks and other media

When critiquing artworks or posters, use speculative verbs such as evoke, create, appear, and suggest to reflect interpretation as a reader’s perspective.
Assume the reader has not seen the material; describe it to help visualization.
For reviews of films or plays, avoid spoiling key events unless necessary, in which case include a disclaimer.
For artworks, describe the material in simple terms to aid visualization; avoid vagueness or excessive abstraction.

General conclusion notes for reaction papers

Your conclusion may address: Did the work hold your interest? Did it annoy or excite you? Did it prompt questions for the author/creator? Did it lead to new realizations? Did it remind you of other materials?

Additional structural targets (specific to reviews of scholarly works and articles)

As you approach, remember to frame analysis within the theoretical context of the field and maintain clear justification for evaluating methodology and conclusions.

Numbers and references

Use LaTeX formatting for numerical and mathematical references where appropriate, e.g.:
- Length ranges: $250\,\text{to}\,750\,\text{words}$
- Percentages: $5\%$ , $10\%$ , $75\%$ , $10\%$
- Timeframes: $8\text{ years}$