[Cetonis]

vivi/viva: I think there is actually a rather large disticntion between writing a review as <your opinion, supported by facts> versus writing a review as <the facts about a series, with your opinions added in>.

How about this:

Say Bush gives a speech where he says he is going to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq, and explains that his reasoning behind this is so that the country could be stabilized faster, and therefore it would be safe to bring the troops home sooner than it would be otherwise.

Now, say you feel like sending 20,000 more troops can only serve to make things worse, and you wanted to portray this idea to someone else.


Opinion, supported by fact: "Bush is making things worse and worse in Iraq. Today he said he was sending 20,000 more troops!"

The facts, accompanied by opinion: "Bush is going to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq, under the theory that it will end the ordeal faster. I think that's ridiculous; sending more troops will only cause the Iraqis to be more dependant and make it harder to get out of there."


Notice the difference - the second statement actually allows the listener the oppurtunity to agree with Bush. Also, it requires you to explain yourself a bit more, since you must overcome information that conflicts with your belief.

As v16 pointed out, opinions supported by fact are used for arguing with/persuading people. However, the purpose of a review is not to persuade but to inform. For that, it is much better to state the facts, complemented by your opinion.