• 06 Nov, 2025 *

I’m reading [“On Writing Well” by William Zinsser](https://lwgrs.bearblog.dev/%5Bhttps://app.thestorygraph.com/books/6b3cfe39-212f-41c9-a1a9-9501800a0d6b%5D(https://dn790000.ca.archive.org/0/items/OnWritingWell/on-writing-well.pdf)), a book about how to write nonfiction - for the lack of a better word - well. I want to write a review of the book as soon as possible, but I’m holding back from starting it because I haven’t finished reading it.

The takeaway from the book that is bouncing around in my head is to “collect more material than you will use”1. I have recorded several quotes from the book in an electronic note and further used post-it flags to mark their location. I intend to highlight these passages in the future, to the indignation of book lovers (this is a reference book, highlighting useful passages should be expected). I am certain there will be more useful quotes before I turn the final page.

But is it necessary to finish what you’re reading or watching or listening to before writing your review? Logically the answer is “yes”, if you want to ground your review with examples to back up your opinion, but I think there are situations where it is appropriate to write a review without the full picture.

My definition of “review” is admittedly vague. I was recently invited by Cris to his Discord server for like-minded bear bloggers. I asked the other members their opinion on the matter and received some helpful feedback2. But in short order the conversation turned into a debate about what defines a review; I didn’t realize that it was such a subjective word.

Here’s how I choose to define it for the purpose of this post: a review is a long-form opinion. It is different from a critique in that the writer of the review is not considered an expert on the subject matter. The review is a space to share an in-depth opinion than is usually offered in a paragraph.

A person writing a review is sharing their personal experience and thoughts about the subject, rather than giving the reader information on whether or not xyz product is worth buying or consuming. Of course, there is overlap and people will sometimes use these reviews for purchasing decisions, but that is not the purpose of writing the review.

Returning to my original question, I’ve determined that it depends mostly on the subject being reviewed, but also personal reactions to it. The first example that sprung to mind as being OK to review without completing it are video games.

I don’t play video games on a regular basis, and when I do it’s usually a rotation of 2 to 3 games (and two of those are sports games). It’s not likely that I’ll finish those games quickly; in fact the only game I finished the main story within a few weeks was Spider-Man (2018, PS4)3. For the sports games, there isn’t a “main story” to complete and you can theoretically play those games for years because of how they are designed.

As long as I spend the time going through most aspects of the game, I think that is enough data with which to form a review. Conversely, if I wanted to review a movie, I think that it’s necessary to watch the whole movie. But when I think about a book, I’m very quick to stop reading something I don’t enjoy. I feel that I could still write a review about the book, even though I haven’t finished it.

TV shows are similar in that I think it’s acceptable to watch 1-2 episodes (preferably at least 3) to write a review. On the other hand, Tamerlane wrote a review of Arcane after watching the entire series detailing why he is so impassioned about it. (And after reading the post, I believe it encapsulates my definition of a review.)

Tamerlane also put forward the idea of technology, such as phones; I hadn’t considered consumer products when I asked the question. I agree with him:

... there is no “end” to using a phone. [You] can’t predict how well a phone will age. ...

It was an interesting point to consider. Winther gave me another helpful thought:

If you are transparent about not finishing a movie ... I think it is fair to write a review. It is a fair criticism if a movie is so bad you can’t finish it.

And another idea, from Pirate:

... you can always update your review after finishing or if you decide it’s not worth finishing but is still fun

Reading these quotes I’ve picked from the discussion might lead one to conclude my opinion is that it’s OK to review something without completing it. That’s a reasonable conclusion but I return to my wishy-washy answer: it depends.

I’d like to have reached a more definitive conclusion but I have none. In light of the discussion veering into the territory of asking, “what is a review?” it’s clear that your own definition will determine whether or not you should complete whatever it is you’re reviewing.

For my reviews, I’m going to be inconsistent. Most books I will wait until I’ve read the book; I will certainly finish entire movies. TV shows? Mixed bag.

No matter what, I’m with Winther: I will be as transparent as possible about everything I review.

Reply by email [Share this post](https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https://lwgrs.bearblog.dev/when-is-the-right-time-to-write-a-review&title=When is the right time to write a review?) Mastodon Bluesky

---

Zinsser, William. On Writing Well. Harper Perennial, 2016, pp 58.↩ 1.

Thank you everyone! It was a great discussion and it was very helpful for this piece.↩ 1.

I specify “main story” because it is an open-universe style game with many side quests to complete, but I chose not to play the game for as long as that. Also, I borrowed it from the library, which made me more focused on finishing the story.↩

#echo #reviews