(First and foremost, I must say that I am reviewing the online version of the South Loop Review as I was no longer on campus when this assignment was given. Therefore, I am not able to comment on the physical appearance/construction of the zine.)
The South Loop Review, an annual publication of the English Department at Columbia College Chicago, is a literary journal containing some of the best and most diverse creative nonfiction and photography in the Chicagoland area. (Although starting out as student-generated work from courses such as Composition, Creative Nonfiction, Literature and Professional Writing, the South Loop Review now exclusively prints Creative Nonfiction work and is not only open to submissions by students at Columbia College Chicago, but also by any student or neighbor in Chicago.) The official website calls for "experimental forms of creative nonfiction such as segmented essays, montaged memoir, illustrated or graphic memoir, and short-form creative nonfiction--pieces that tell a story either through image or image and word." I am reviewing the online version of the South Loop Review, Volume 10.
Volume 10 of the South Loop Review online displays a very cool, large photograph of a close-up of an elephant's eye. Relevant? Not to any of the few selections that I read, but still a nice physical appearance in a swarm of black and white daily newspapers and flyers/brochures.
I read a few submissions in this edition: "Shaving My Mother's Head" by Andrea Combo, an observant five-part essay/prose about Combo's life with her mother going through cancer, "Mother, Broken" by Tom Whalen, a disorderly poetic piece, and "Neighbors" by Richard Terrill, a piece waaaaay too long for the attention spans of college students.
I particularly enjoyed the flawed but hilarious piece "Riverview" by John Crone. Crone writes about his time spent in a mental instituion, Riverview, where he has a roommate who has sexual intercourse with his mattress and where nicotine cravings are all too familiar. We don't find out why Crone is in this institution, but it's apparent that he is, by far, the most "normal" patient. "Riverview" is a short but humorous look at life in a psychiatric hospital from the eyes of a man who doesn't belong.
What I loved about the South Loop Review is that all of these contributors were so personal, so open, so honest. The artists shared a part of their private lives that most of us aren't able to discover when we're consumed with our daily routines. I am unfamiliar with the South Loop Review as a whole (this is the first volume I have picked up,) but there didn't seem to be any cohesion with these various pieces. I actually really liked that. It was a compilation of everyday people sharing their stories and their creativity with the residents of Chicago.
This volume would be a great read for a long train or airplane ride. The publication isn't exactly my cup of tea, (I only read trashy stuff like the Red Eye on the train,) but I can wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who is interested in nonfiction/fiction writing and poetry.
On a side note: the title of this publication throws me off. It sounds like an all-encompassing guide to the South Loop when it's really an artistic publication. Strange. I would change the name to something like "Good Toilet Reading for Artistic People". Don't you think it would gain popularity?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You have a very conversational style of writing which I found engaging and easy to follow. You set up the background history of the South Loop Review well which to me was very helpful as I am unfamiliar with this publication. Nice job framing your favorite pieces from the South Loop Review. It really made me want to go pick up a copy and check out the story 'Riverview.'I could definitely understand where you were coming from as a first time reader of this publication and your positive reaction was refreshing.
ReplyDeleteFirst off I like how you tell the reader right off the bat where your coming from ie your situation. It throws a bit of a personal aspect into the mix and sets the tone for what's to be expected. Very describtive too, so funny moments in this one. Plus you summarize South Loop well yet come off with a bold voice; implementing your opinion harsh or not. Getting further into your review your voice could be heard amongst the info. Its written well. Its honest. Don't down play your voice in your review because it works.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your review and found it humorous as well as informative. After reading this, it made me want to go out and read this publication, especially the piece "Riverview," which you made out to seem an interesting, if not shocking, read. You put down that you were reviewing the online version twice though, which I thought was unnecessary. But all in all, I enjoyed it and it kept my attention.
ReplyDeleteAlex, your review is very well written and seems very well thought out. Knowing that you only had a limited version of the publication is also helpful. Your review adds some great insight mixed with some humor and interesting observation. I think you eloquently stated how this wasn't your cup of tea yet you still recommended it for others and told them why. The way you described some of the stories specifically really can give a reader more information about the stories as well as viewing an outside opinion. The only thing I would recommend would be to tone down the paragraphs. There seems to be many different thoughts that could potentially be fused into one paragraph.
ReplyDeleteAlex, this is a very striking review. My first thought is that the tone of the review seems somewhat opposed to the publication under consideration. SLR seems to me to be a serious endeavor, and your review is somewhat puckish. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, as long as you're aware that you've made that choice.
ReplyDeleteYou have some very nice turns of phrase here: "flawed but hilarious"; "so personal, so open, so honest"; and so on. You have a nice mix of summary and assessment. You do a good job telling us what, exactly, the SLR is before you tell us anything about how good it is.
I was also struck by personal asides like "(I only read trashy stuff like the Red Eye on the train,)" as it makes me wonder whether that diminishes your credibility as a reviewer of this publication; it seems to say "I never read anything like this," so I'm left to wonder whether SLR is a good publication in a genre you just don't like, or whether you, as a reviewer, have the context necessary to assess it fairly. Merely omitting that single phrase would ameliorate that doubt significantly, I think.