solanas invictus

Yeah and then it rains candy and the rainbow is made of jelly and we can drink the ocean because it's made of soda.

Funny enough, it's reading other people's essays. What I've learned about essay and review making is that they are more an exercise in which you argue with the thing reviewed rather than making a synopsis. You should try asking the media "Why?" And try to answer it with the very evidence they give to you within the media. I hate when people are like "but the author said in an interview" ok, they should've put it in the movie/book/painting/whatever.

Some readings that helped me grasp the concept of what good analisys should be are the following:

(Note the insane variety of the topics they cover)

This is an essay about documentaries, so it's the most straightforward about reviewing movies:

The mains subject is: "are plot twists justifiable devices in documentaries where truth is more valuable than plot?'

Please bear with me with the next one:

Ignore the name of the link, the book is "Paranormal America, Ghost Encounters, UFO sightings, Bigfoot Hunts and other curiosities in religion and culture". What I love about this book is how it applies sociological analysis to an interesting, well known, and popular topic. It never treats it as a dumb, stupid fad or superstitious but dwelves deep in what makes people believe in this. A great reading for those interested in the paranormal or in what humanities divulgation can look like.

a recent read:

This is another review that just because the source material is bad, it doesnt treat it as stupid. It analyses why its bad, where it is lacking and why it is still so compelling.

And finally, a marxist one: