Writing a

Reaction
Paper,
Review, and
Critique

• BERNARDO, Eleina Bea

• QUIOGUE, Madelene
• JAZUL, Chermayne
Topics Covered:

What are Reaction Papers,

01 Reviews, and Critiques?

Critical Approaches in
02 Writing a Critique

Structure of a Reaction
03 Paper, Review, or Critique

Guidelines in Writing a
04 Reaction Paper, Review or
Critique
 What are Reaction
Papers, Reviews, and
Critiques?
Reaction Paper

 a type of written assignment,

which requires personal opinion
and conclusions on a given
article or abstract.
Review

 a report in a newspaper or
magazine, or on the Internet,
television or radio, in which
somebody gives their opinion of
a book, play, film/movie, etc.
Critique

 a written examination and

judgment of a situation or of
a person's work or ideas
What are Reaction Papers,
Reviews, and Critiques?
Characteristics of a Reaction Paper, Review,
and Critique
 usually range in length from 250-750 words
 not simply summaries but are critical assessments, analyses, or
evaluation of different works
 involve your skills in critical thinking and recognizing arguments
 should not connect the word critique to cynicism and
pessimism
 reviewers do not simply rely on mere opinions; they use both
proofs and logical reasoning to substantiate their comments
Critical Approaches in
Writing a Critique
 Formalism
 claims that literary works
contain intrinsic properties
and treats each work as a
distinct work of art
Following are the common aspects looked into formalism:
o Author’s techniques in resolving contradictions
within the work
o Central passage that sumps up the entirety of the
work
o Contribution of parts and the work as a whole to
its aesthetic quality
o Contribution of rhymes and rhythms to the
meaning or effect of the work
o Relationship of the form and the content
o Use of imagery to develop the symbols used in
the work
o Interconnectedness of various parts of the
work
o Paradox, ambiguity, and irony in the work
o Unity in the work
Read a sample formalist critique of Dead Stars, a classic Filipino short story
by Paz Marquez Benitez.

The title of the work already gives an idea as to what it means. In physics,
it is stated that the light and energy of the stars have to travel light years to reach
us. Since they are millions of miles away and light has to travel this large
distance, it is highly possible that the star has already exploded while its light is
still travelling towards us. Therefore it is possible that a bright light we see at night
actually comes from a dead star. In the story, this metaphor is used to refer to
Alfredo’s love for Julia, a woman he meets and falls for one fateful summer. Not
only is the title an indicator of what is to come, even the fate of the characters in
the story can already be seen through their names. Alfredo’s name means
counselor of elves in Spanish and suggests someone who is wise. In the story, it is
indicated that Alfredo is a lawyer, a person who counsels. Still, his name denotes
a certain irony; despite his supposed wisdom, Alfredo’s actions, especially his
covert courtship with Julia while being engaged to another, are anything but
sensible. Julia’s name, on the other hand, refers to someone who is youthful,
which is how Alfredo sees her for eight years until he is confronted by reality.
Feminist Criticism
 also known as feminism, focuses on
how literature presents women as
subjects of socio-political,
psychological, and economic
oppression.
The common aspects looked into when using feminism are as
follows:

o How culture determines gender

o How gender equality (or the lack of it) is presented in
the text
o How gender issues are presented in literary works and
other aspects of human production and daily life
o How women are socially, politically, psychologically,
and economically oppressed by patriarchy
o How patriarchal ideology is an overpowering
presence
Sample feminist critique of Dead Stars:

The story is a study of power imbalance brought about by gender. In the

beginning, Dead Stars already clearly illustrates the gender roles ingrained in Filipino
society: Don Julian and the judge are portrayed as the male leaders of the household,
taking up lofty professions such as business and law while the women are portrayed
accomplishing domestic tasks such as tending to children and preparing food. The
most note-worthy display of imbalance in power, however, lies on the central theme of
Alfredo’s love for Julia as simply a dead star. Eight years after their forbidden love and
after getting married to another woman, Alfredo still holds Julia as an object of
affection, thus creating a distance between him and his wife, Esperanza. In their
relationship as a wedded couple, the power lies in Alfredo, not only because
patriarchal society designates him as the head of the household, but also because he
remains unreachable to his wife by harboring feelings for another woman. Moreover,
the realization that his love for Julia is simply a dead star is brought about by his
treatment of Julia as simply an illusion and an object of affection, and not as a woman.
This gender imbalance leads to a tragic epiphany for the characters, but is also a
reflection of how men are viewed to dominate not only in the household but also in
their relationship with women.
Reader Response Criticism

 concerned
with the
reviewer’s
reaction as
3
an audience
4
of a work
The common aspects looked into when using
reader response criticism are as follows:

o Interaction between the reader and

the text in creating meaning

o The impact of readers’ delivery of

sounds and visuals on enhancing and
changing meaning
Sample reader response critique of Dead Stars

Despite being limited in length, Dead Stars manages to evoke various

feelings which ultimately build up the ending. While Alfredo is the center of
the story, as a woman reader it is hard not to feel greatly for Esperanza.
Esperanza can only be seen through the perspective of Alfredo. This does a
disservice to her, as we can only know her through the description of
someone who does not love her anymore. Still, it is also through Alfredo’s
descriptions and his unfaithfulness that Esperanza gains sympathy from the
reader. During all the moments when Alfredo and Julia are together, the
thought of Esperanza looms in the background—does she know? How will
she react? What will happen now? The sympathy only increases when they
get married, for it is clear that Alfredo is detached from her and is still
harboring feelings for Julia. While the end certainly evokes a feeling of loss at
Alfredo’s epiphany, it is the feeling of betrayal for Esperanza that stays.
Marxist Criticism

 concerned with
differences between
economic classes and
implications of a capitalist
system, such as the
continuing conflicts
between the working class
and the elite
The common aspects looked into when using
Marxist criticism are as follows:

o Social class as represented in the work

o Social class of the writer/creator
o Social class of the characters
o Conflicts and interactions between
economic classes
Sample Marxist criticism of Dead Stars
The imbalanced societal power play is evident in the short story in the
form of the treatment of the characters based on their class. This is most
easily evident in the conversation between Alfredo and his fiancée,
Esperanza, about Calixta, their note-carrier who grew up in the latter’s
family. The scene depicts a parallelism in the circumstance of Alfredo and
his new love, Julia, and Calixta and her live-in partner. However, while no
one blatantly frowns upon the budding relationship between Alfredo and
Julia, except for some whispered rumors that reach Esperanza, Calixta is
dubbed “ungrateful” to her master for doing such an act. Alfredo does not
have to answer anyone for his unfaithfulness, but Calixta is responsible not
only for what her family might think, but also for the members of her master’s
family. Despite the same circumstances, the two people are regarded
differently based on their positions in life.
Other Approaches in Writing a Critique
 Postmodern Criticism  Ecocriticism
 Postcolonial Criticism  Biographical Criticism
 Structuralism  Historical Criticism
 Psychological Criticism  Mythological Criticism
 Gender Criticism  Deconstructionist Criticism
 Structure of a Reaction
Paper, Review, or Critique
 Structure for Critiques of Academic Researches and
Articles
Introduction (around 5% of the paper)
• Title of the book/article/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 (in no particular order and around 75% of the paper)
• Appropriateness of methodology to support the arguments for (books and
articles) or appropriateness of mode of presentation (other works)
• Theoretical soundness, coherence of ideas
• Sufficiency and soundness of explanation in relation to other available
information and experts
• Other perspectives in explaining the concepts and ideas
• It is best to ask the following questions during this part:
→ Does the writer explicitly state his/her thesis statement?
→ What are the assumptions (i.e., a scientific/logical/literary explanation
without evidence) mentioned in the work? Are they explicitly discussed?
→ What are the contributions of the work to the field where it belongs?
→ What problems and issues are discussed or presented in the work?
→ What kinds of information (e.g., observation, survey, statistics, historical
accounts) are presented in the work? How are they used to support the
arguments or thesis?
→ Are there other ways of supporting the arguments or thesis aside from the
information used in the work? Is the author or creator silent about these
alternative ways of explanation?
Conclusion (around 10% of the paper)
• Overall impression of the work
• Scholarly or literary value of the reviewed article, book, or work
• Benefits for the intended audience or field
• Suggestion for future direction of research

For other types of reviews, there is no prescribed structure, but the following sections
are almost always present.

Introduction
• Basic details about the material, such as its title, director or artist, name of
exhibition/event, and the like
• Main assessment of the material (for films and performances)
Plot Summary/Description
• Gist of the plot
• Simple description of the artwork
Analysis/Interpretation
• Discussion and analysis of the work (you may employ the critical approach here)
• It is best to ask the following questions during this part.
→ What aspects of the work make you think it is a success or failure?
→ Were there unanswered questions or plot lines? If yes, how did they affect the
story?
→ Does the work remind you of other things you have experienced through
analogies, metaphors, or other figurative devices? How does this contribute to the
meaning?
→ How does this work relate to other ideas or events in the world and/or in your
other studies?
→ What stood out while you were watching the film or the performance?
Conclusion/Evaluation
• Reinforcement of main assessment
• Comparison to a similar work
• Recommendation of the material (if you liked it)
 Guidelines in Writing a
Reaction Paper, Review,
or Critique
1. For articles or journals
a. Read, view, or listen to the work to be reviewed carefully to get the main topic or the concepts
presented. Then revisit the work to further identify its arguments or message.
b. Relate the content of the work to what you already know about the topic. This will make you more
engaged in the article or book.
c. Focus on discussing how the book treats the topic and not the topic itself. Use phrases such as this
book/work presents and the author argues
d. Situate your review. This means that your analysis should be anchored on the theories presented by
the writer or creator.
e. Report the type of analysis or mode of presentation the writer/creator used and how this type of
analysis supports the arguments and claims.
f. Examine whether the findings are adequately supported and how the connections between ideas
affect the conclusions and findings.
g. Suggest points for improvement of the reasoning, explanation, presentation of ideas, as well as
alternative methods and processes of reasoning.
h. Compare the writer’s or creator’s explanation of the topic to that of another expert from the same
field of study.
i. Point out other conclusions or interpretations that the writer/creator missed out. Present other ideas
that need to be examined.
j. Show your agreement with the writer’s or creator’s idea and present an explanation for this
agreement.
2. For artworks and other media
a. When critiquing artworks or posters, make sure to use speculative verbs such as
evoke, create, appear, and suggest to show that your interpretation of the artist’s work
is just that—an interpretation.
b. Presume that the reader has not yet seen the material you are reviewing, so make sure
to describe it to them. For reviews or films or plays, make sure not to spoil key events
unless they figure in your review, in which case always add a disclaimer.
c. For artworks, describe the material in simpler terms to help your audience visualize it;
refrain from being vague or abstract.
3. On a general note, your reaction paper’s conclusion may focus on the following ideas:
a. Did the work hold your interest?
b. Did the work annoy or excite you?
c. Did the work prompt you to raise questions to the author?
d. Did the work lead you to some realizations?
e. Did the work remind you of other materials that you have read, viewed, or listened to in
the past?