Looking at reviews of Star Trek tv episodes, among other things, I notice that despite the plot summary included in the main description, the individual reviewers continually insist on pushing out plot summary in their ‘reviews’. Even though the last 10 reviewers did the same.
I also notice on wikipedia, it seems every episode entry of a reasonably popular tv show has an extremely detailed plot summary; actual analysis (as in the amazon reviews) is sparse to non existent, and is usually based on trivia.
Not trying to rant, but as a question, what is the appeal with plot summary? The last thing I would ever do is go on amazon and rehash the same summary; I would prefer to discuss something novel. As would my fellow geniuses on this wonderful site . . .
I don’t know why Wikipedia is that way but I’m grateful for it. It often happens that I miss the beginning of a movie on TV, so the plot summary provides the background to really understand what happens at the end. Less often, I miss the ending, in which case the plot summary is obviously useful.
Besides that, I’m often curious about a film even if I have no intention of seeing it. I’ve already looked up The Book Of Eli and Legion even though I have no intention of actually watching them.
I’ve noticed it at Amazon but never questioned why. With Harriett Klausner, it’s obvious – she gets a kick out of being Amazon’s #1 Reviewer. I think people just enjoy putting their opinions out there. Sometimes it results in an interesting discussion, in the Comments section.
On Wikipedia, a plot summary is reporting facts, whereas analysis of the episode will likely be original research, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (albeit one which has an article on every single episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer). The purpose of Wikipedia is to present objective and verifiable facts. If there is some notable critical analysis of an artistic work (say, which relates Buffy the Vampire Slayer to some particular form of feminism) then that might be presented in the article, but only if some external source can be cited (“according to the noted literary critic Jane Doe…”).
With Wikipedia, it’s because the actual episode is verifiable. Your interpretation is not; it’s original research. Most episodes of most shows do not have any published critisms that are considered valid sources for Wikipedia. This used to mean that said show would not get an article, but the people who cared about that sort of stuff seem to have given up on pop culture articles.
The Amazon plot summaries generally do have hidden kernels of interpretation. The reason people feel the need to do a plot summary is they don’t think the previous reviewer got it quite right.
I also think it’s partly because people want to contribute and with the bots on Wikipedia getting more and more aggressive it’s hard to put anything into Wikipedia and get it to stick.
So this is one place where you can make a change and it holds
I think people want to contribute and need something safe to say.
Looking at reviews of Star Trek tv episodes, among other things, I notice that despite the plot summary included in the main description, the individual reviewers continually insist on pushing out plot summary in their ‘reviews’. Even though the last 10 reviewers did the same.
I also notice on wikipedia, it seems every episode entry of a reasonably popular tv show has an extremely detailed plot summary; actual analysis (as in the amazon reviews) is sparse to non existent, and is usually based on trivia.
Not trying to rant, but as a question, what is the appeal with plot summary? The last thing I would ever do is go on amazon and rehash the same summary; I would prefer to discuss something novel. As would my fellow geniuses on this wonderful site . . .
I agree, why bother posting the same thing everyone else did?
If I’m writing a review and posting it on my blog, I’m summarizing the book. If I decide to throw the review to Amazon, I’m not going to re-write it if I’m not the first to summarize it. What I’m getting at is that I wrote the review “off site” without knowing whether I’d be the first or the 800th to say “Eragon is a dragon he hatches lol!!”
Also, the taboo on spoiling a plot is uniquely American. And many contributors to such sites are not. In fact, in the Dutch national papers reviews will matter-of factly spoil the plot, to make the review easier.
But then again, we have our own particular taboos on this side of the pond. Drafts for instance. Anyone who opens a window and causes a draft, will be adressed and accused in that same petulant tone Americans use to adress someone who spoiled their book or movie for them.
In my humble opinion, most “reviewers” have not the first idea of how to review, and believe that a plot summary is the equivalent of a thoughtful examination of why a given work succeeds or fails.
This. Plot summaries are easy to write. Anything else is not.
As with SDMB, a lot of the value of posting is in the act of posting. You make yourself feel good with what you post. Whether anyone else reads it or gets value from it is secondary.
I think this has a lot to do with it. The average reviewer on Amazon probably hasn’t progressed above the “elementary school book report” level of literary review. The main purpose of such reports is really to prove that you read the book in question, not to explore any insights into its literary merit.
Most of the time (unless it’s really objectively bad or good) I don’t want to know what other people think. I want to form my own opinion. If people are saying Book X is awful because of Y and Z, it will lesson my enjoyment of the book, even if I don’t mind Y and Z, or if I feel the rest of the book makes up for it.
What I do want are summaries. The more I know about a book, the better I’ll know whether to get it or not. I’m not including spoilers- I hate spoilers just as much as the rest of you- but I need something more than, “Lisa goes back to visit her childhood home and finds there are dark secrets waiting for her” when deciding what to get.
I hate those books where they have blurbs instead of plot description on the back, and you can’t figure out much more than the genre.
I like a plot summary in a stand-alone review. But it seems a sign of laziness or unconcern when all fifteen “reviews” on Amazon include a plot summary, just below the “Product Description” which includes the official publisher’s plot summary.
How are the bots getting more aggressive on Wikiipedia? I’m not being sarcastic; I would like to know. It’s not something I’ve noticed, but I haven’t had time to contribute much recently.
The official plot summery is often annoying vague, more concerned with telling you how great the author is and how brilliant and dazzling and original the book is. I’m not sure exactly why we are supposed to believe that an author is “suspenseful” and “masterful” and “engrossing” just because the book jacket says so.
No, you’re not alone. It drives me mad when I see a book with an interesting title/cover and the back just says things like “A gripping read! Cardiff Telegraph”, “[Author] John Smith is at the top of his game - The Bombay Times”, “The story starts on page one and doesn’t finish until the end!”- Alice Springs Herald. In short, useless fluff from publications you may or may not have actually heard of.
And even if there’s little blurb on the flap, it’s often little more than "John Smith’s character Gary “Wheels” Johnson returns in this explosive adventure in which he must face his most dangerous adversary yet- the Ruislip Ladies Gardening & Bridge Club!, followed by more generic fluff that could very easily be created by a random blurb generator.
And that assumes that the blurb on the back or in the dust jacket actually has any relationship to the book. I have a number of old science fiction books with little descriptions of what happen in the book that are nowhere near what happens or even what the book is about. Though one of my favorite blurbs was on the back of an old VHS release of an animated adaptation of Animal Farm that proclaimed it “fun for the whole family.”
