Do you think that if someone is good at reviewing fiction that automatically makes them a better writer of fiction? If so what is your reasoning for that?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Do you think that if someone is good at reviewing fiction that automatically makes them a better writer of fiction? If so what is your reasoning for that?
No, since "reviewing" can mean anything. Analysis is not included.
Then does being good analysing fiction make someone good at writing fiction? Also what is the difference between 'analysis' and 'reviewing'? To me reviewing sounds like you are only talking about the work of fiction and analysis sounds like you are also looking at things outside the work itself. So I would say that what GRArkada does(or used to do, I haven't watched him in some time) is reviewing by talking about different aspects of the show like the animation, sound and stuff while what Digibrony is doing is mainly analysis by talking mainly about the themes. Is analysis just in-depth reviewing or is it something else?
Analysis is breaking apart something and studying it. How much you do it does not matter. Which is why just saying you liked something is analysis (a very shallow one).