Review writing: repairing a split register
A candidate is writing a 250-word review for the school magazine about a visiting theatre company's production of Macbeth. The magazine's style guide says: 'Lively but coherent; no slang; address readers directly as "you"; avoid jargon.' The draft opens: 'OMG, Macbeth was totally sick. The actors were like, whatever, but the thespians delivered a superlative rendition of the soliloquies.' Later it says: 'The utilisation of chiaroscuro lighting was impactful.' The candidate wants the review to sound 'intelligent but fun' and has asked whether the mixed language is a problem. The audience is students and teachers, and the review will also be read by the head teacher. The candidate has 15 minutes to revise.
1. Explain the register problem in the two quoted sentences and why it matters for this audience.
Read the worked answer
The first sentence uses slang ('OMG', 'totally sick', 'like, whatever') that excludes teachers and the head teacher and lowers the register below the magazine's style guide. The second uses over-formal, latinate diction ('thespians', 'superlative rendition') that sounds like a different writer. The clash matters because the audience is mixed: students will find the formal sentence pompous, while teachers will find the slang unserious. The review's credibility depends on a consistent voice that is lively but standard. The candidate is confusing 'intelligent but fun' with mixing two registers rather than controlling one.
2. Rewrite the opening three sentences to establish a consistent register that is lively but standard.
Read the worked answer
Macbeth in the school hall was a bold, messy production that mostly worked. The witches opened in near-darkness, their voices overlapping until you could not tell where one ended and another began. By the time Macbeth entered, the audience was already leaning forward.
3. Identify one feature of the original you would keep and one you would remove, explaining the effect on the reader.
Read the worked answer
Keep the direct address to 'you' and the vivid judgement 'bold, messy'-they create energy and include the reader. Remove 'OMG' and 'like, whatever' because they signal a different, informal register and undermine the reviewer's authority with the mixed audience. Also remove 'utilisation of chiaroscuro lighting was impactful' because the abstraction hides the effect; replace it with a concrete description of what the lighting did to the actors' faces.