I'm down with the man, KSM (just his initials tell who I mean), but I would add a 5th possible reviewing function: how the reviewer as writer makes use of or applies him/herself to the reviewed. okay, I just went lumpy in my phraseology, sorry. I've recently put 'reviews' on this blog, of Warren, Tabios, Ellis, Koeneke (German pronunciation) and Larsen. also I was much taken by some of Jack Kimball's recent posts, a poem by Shanna Compton. I met each writer in terms of my own writerhood. what can these magicians offer me? not so much a supermarket offering, but I find myself likening my effort to theirs, comparing the distinctions, trying to incororate different ways. I approach this well-meaningly, I'm not doing an I'm better than (I mean, do you think so???) in my book commentaries. Kasey's characterizations are absolutely apt. I don't feel qualified in them, however, as regards my own reactionizations, public I mean (of course I love what I love). but I know I read with interest, and my interest bears on my writing. this is solipsistic, yup, but I do not proceed with a pretense of objectivity. the gas about the Johnson/Behrle et al contretemps is that in the merge of self-defense and radical defense and overt offense, etc, it's not clear what the honest instigation is. i.e.: is it the poem that bugs you, or the moustache. I don't want to prance in the bungalow of my own integrity, but I know vis-à-vis the above writers, that I approached their works with a defined interest. my interest in writing, and how their work touched beneficently on what I want and hope to do. I have failed if you, reader lovely, don't see this. Kasey's right to enumerate these possibilities, the reader should be so aware. I think my addition usefully extends his consideration.