Fans of unconventional fiction would be pleased to learn of a novel piece of writing, cleverly titled Meta-review. As the title suggests, the manuscript is disguised in the form of a review. Beyond that disguise, however, lies a pot of creative gold.
The entire concept of Meta-review lies in the idea of self-reference. It is not merely a review, which by itself would be mundane by any standards. Rather, it is a review of a review of a review of a ... And yes, you guessed it, it is a review of itself. The subject of Meta-review IS Meta-review.
While self-reference may seem like a confounding subject for any literary work, the author manages to tie all the strings together to form a cogent and thought-provoking read. In particular, many parts of the article will surely catch the mind's eye; One especially colourful example was when Meta-review suddenly changed the colour of the text just as it was making reference to the change of colour. This unexpected case of self-reference definitely made the writing appear more vivid.
However, the most amazing line in Meta-review is not that, but the sentence highlighted (in green) below. What a mind-boggling existential paradox!
Beyond the perplexing genius of the self-referential device, however, Meta-review also suffers from a number of non-critical flaws. The most glaring is a lack of proper editing, which is apparent in a misspelling inside a quote, which we have reproduced below.
The entire concept of Meta-review lies in the idea of self-reference. It is not merely a review, which by itself would be mundane by any standards. Rather, it is a review of a review of a review of a ... And yes, you guessed it, it is a review of itself. The subject of Meta-review IS Meta-review.
While self-reference may seem like a confounding subject for any literary work, the author manages to tie all the strings together to form a cogent and thought-provoking read. In particular, many parts of the article will surely catch the mind's eye; One especially colourful example was when Meta-review suddenly changed the colour of the text just as it was making reference to the change of colour. This unexpected case of self-reference definitely made the writing appear more vivid.
However, the most amazing line in Meta-review is not that, but the sentence highlighted (in green) below. What a mind-boggling existential paradox!
Beyond the perplexing genius of the self-referential device, however, Meta-review also suffers from a number of non-critical flaws. The most glaring is a lack of proper editing, which is apparent in a misspelling inside a quote, which we have reproduced below.
The mispeling.
What makes things worse is that the entire paragraph containing the misspelling was superfluous, and could have been removed without affecting the contents of the article.
Another weakness, and one which is more serious, is that when under the guise of a review, Meta-review criticized the reviewed article for committing Tu quoque, when in fact, Meta-review was also guilty of making the same error. What was particularly distasteful was Meta-review's harsh denouncement of the error - such hypocritical behaviour should definitely be condemned.
All in all, Meta-review is an interesting and unique work that should be read by all readers of this review. Meta-review can be read by clicking on this hyperlink.
Another weakness, and one which is more serious, is that when under the guise of a review, Meta-review criticized the reviewed article for committing Tu quoque, when in fact, Meta-review was also guilty of making the same error. What was particularly distasteful was Meta-review's harsh denouncement of the error - such hypocritical behaviour should definitely be condemned.
All in all, Meta-review is an interesting and unique work that should be read by all readers of this review. Meta-review can be read by clicking on this hyperlink.
