OnlineBookClub.org

What does it mean when it is said that the review reads like a 'cookie cutter review'?

It's as if the reviewer used a template to write the review and just inserted the variables, such as the book's title and various character names but otherwise just stamped out a copy/paste version.

Many unskilled reviewers also write what I term "high school" reviews. They write a synopsis of the plot and then end the review by saying whether they did or didn't like the book. Such reviews are kind of boring you must imagine a high school English class where the kids were assigned the review of a book they didn't read anyway, and just copied the plot of the book off the internet.

As I see it, reviews should be a little essay about writing in general, dealing with the novel's story as it relates to society, how well the characters are delineated, the skill the author used (or didn't use) in presenting the themes of the novel. That's how I write my reviews, similar to the New Yorker or NY Times style.

Either way, however, a "cookie cutter" review is one that appears to have been written from a template. Even if not, the review is formulaic and trite, in other words, a "high school" style review.

Hope that helps.

Thanks!

Here's an example: Cookie cutter neighborhoods are where all the houses look like the same house or very similar.

I don't know the context of the question about a cookie cutter review. It could be what Modern Times described. It could also be that a review sounds almost the same no matter what book is being reviewed - basically so general it could apply to any book. It could be that the style and word usage is very similar with every review. It could be all of the above. As prevlously mentioned, I don't know the context of the question so it's difficult to give an opinion.

I'm thinking that most cookie cutter reviews are a product of laziness. The reviewer has a standard review format and just tweaks a few places and the review is done! Done poorly, of course.

I agree.

moderntimes wrote:It's as if the reviewer used a template to write the review and just inserted the variables, such as the book's title and various character names but otherwise just stamped out a copy/paste version.

Many unskilled reviewers also write what I term "high school" reviews. They write a synopsis of the plot and then end the review by saying whether they did or didn't like the book. Such reviews are kind of boring you must imagine a high school English class where the kids were assigned the review of a book they didn't read anyway, and just copied the plot of the book off the internet.

As I see it, reviews should be a little essay about writing in general, dealing with the novel's story as it relates to society, how well the characters are delineated, the skill the author used (or didn't use) in presenting the themes of the novel. That's how I write my reviews, similar to the New Yorker or NY Times style.

Either way, however, a "cookie cutter" review is one that appears to have been written from a template. Even if not, the review is formulaic and trite, in other words, a "high school" style review.

Hope that helps.

Hmmm, you raise some good points but I did some of my best work in secondary school (UK version of high school) and wish I had the sheer exhuberance and freshness of those years. I had one review of the Mysterious Island put up on a board for everyone to view (well until bullies got rid of it!), and it was quite simple without being simplistic. A neat turn of phrase can make all the difference to a review's impact.

I'm not dissing well written reviews by secondary school people or any other sort, of course. I'm dissing the formulaic style of review which is known in the biz as a "high school" review, just as a label for that amateurish review. From what I've seen, it's essentially a synopsis of the plot followed by either gushing praise or harsh negativity in the close. But no real analysis of WHY the book is good or bad, no discussion of the genre, style, characterizations, dialogue, and other elements.

A "cookie cutter" itself is a small aluminum template, "a device with sharp edges for cutting cookie dough into a particular shape." So you can use the same device to cut out dozens of cookies from one batch of cookie dough, each cookie exactly the same as the next.

Can you share an example for the same.

It just refers to the ability to make a lot of things from a template. Like if you read a review of a book and it sounds just like 1,000 other reviews you've read of other books.

[quote="ameliahulse"]Can you share an example for the same.[/quote

Let's take 'Star Wars' as an example. Maybe this will help illustrate:
Cookie cutter:
Synopsis: 'Star Wars' is about a young man who finds a small robot with a hidden message that changes his life.
Opinion: I liked the movie because the robots were cute.
Overall a good movie experience.

Something different:
Idea: many of the great leader, thinkers, revolutionaries have been outsiders. Abraham Lincoln, Steve Jobs, Margaret Thatcher were all outsiders in their own way.
Link: 'Star Wars' picks up the story of a young man who's literally outside - on a tiny desert planet Tattoine, and his pivotal role in the rebellion against the empire.
Discussion: Some might argue his role was preordained - his location irrelevant. But does his childhood outside, away from the 'distractions' of the big city actually build on the inner strength, the 'force' that underpins this universe created by George Lucas.

Sometime the idea is good, sometimes it's ridiculous, sometimes a book is just a book. I can read the synopsis on Amazon - when looking at a review, I'm looking for more nuanced feedback.
(This is not going to work if you haven't seen Star Wars, but I hope you get the gist)