Recaps Vs Reviews Ep 1

A while back, I asked if you'd all like me to review the reviewers. One of my biggest concerns was that recaps were masquerading as reviews. Having been a reviewer, I know the challenges of trying to discuss episodic entertainment while trying to avoid directly giving out a lot of the details (both in an effort to avoid spoilers or to be read/valued simply as Cliff Notes).

I embark on this journey not to shit on anyone doing reviews out there, but to encourage them to up their game. I'll state at the start that I'm unlikely to cast this eye towards BEST SHOTS, as I have friends there and I can't ensure impartiality.

For today's ep, I take a look at Jonathan Williams over at ComicBook.com.

His "review" of Superboy is four paragraphs, two of which are pure recap. In what is left, he reviews the character and concept, not the actual issue. The "review" doesn't truly aspire to be anything more than your average fan on a forum talking about his favorite characters.

Line most worthy of being included in something called a review:

"Some of his actions are certainly un-hero like but we can see the hints of the hero deep inside, especially with his care of the scientist and meta-human Caitlin Fairchild."

What he writes about Resurrection Man is even less of a review. Let's do the math:

 5 total paragraphs
-3 recap paragraphs
-1 paragraph suitable for the solicitation blurb (read the first paragraph of his "review")1 paragraph of indeterminate content that you might argue is review-ish

Again, what passes for the review in the entry is largely passing out general comments on the run of the book so far and hopes for the future issues being better.

Line most worthy of being included in something called a review: 

(space left blank intentionally)

The lack of meat for me to go through here leaves me feeling a bit too much like a recapper for my tastes.