from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- n. One who reviews, especially one who writes critical reviews, as for a newspaper or magazine.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- n. A person who writes critical reviews for a newspaper or other publication; a critic
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- n. One who reviews or reëxamines; an inspector; one who examines publications critically, and publishes his opinion upon their merits; a professional critic of books.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. One who revises; a reviser.
- n. One who reviews or criticizes; especially, one who critically examines and passes judgment upon new publications; a writer of reviews.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- n. someone who reads manuscripts and judges their suitability for publication
- n. a writer who reports and analyzes events of the day
Sorry, no etymologies found.
Similarly, a good, glowing and intelligent review can work in the same way, especially if the reviewer is able to show just why this particular book excited them so.
Especially when one considers that the reviewer is also reviewing the press from which the book is published, and the precarious nature of getting published, it is easy to see that there might be a vested interest one way or another.
I think you're spot on with your assessment that the reviewer is a little bored.
I think the reviewer is as disappointed with this episode as I was .. and that came through in his review.
When a reviewer is as considered and judicious as this, I have no problem with some sour mixed up with the sweet.
What I want in a reviewer is an enthusastic reader who can write those difficult-to-do 700-word readable reviews.
Generally, the reviewer is the first one to bring up the question of a star, but sometimes an editor will suggest it to the reviewer; in both cases, a list of star candidates for that issue of the Magazine is drawn up and ultimately decided at a meeting just before the issue goes to the printer.
The trust that builds between the reader and this kind of reviewer is based more on the idea that this person is like me.
A reviewer is not out there to make snarky comments because they can.
It seems to me that the reviewer is not writing about the book at all, but about his own need to appear “above all that.”