Austin Gunderson says:

Yes, SpecFaith will accept cross-posts from most anywhere (as long as there’s authorial permission, of course)!  The review-submission form even has a field to populate in that regard.

As for review style, smarmy Christianese definitely isn’t a prerequisite.  The reader’s honest reaction takes priority over whatever it is that Christendom would expect him or her to say.  That being said, SpecFaith would quickly meld into the background of genre-nerd-blogs were it not for its uniquely Christian perspective on stories.  That’s what sets us apart from the field; that’s what makes us special.  So yes, SpecFaith reviews must venture beyond the “here’s some word-vomit of my gut-level response” stage to grapple at least somewhat with the extent to which a story as a whole reflects objective truth, goodness, and beauty.

That may sound intimidating, but let me take two seconds to break it down in reverse order.  Assessing a story’s beauty means evaluating its artistic excellence (or lack thereof), internal consistency, and emotional impact.  This is something I think we all do quite naturally, as a story’s beauty usually has a direct influence on whether we enjoy it.  Assessing a story’s goodness means evaluating its content.  What is it that we see happen, and what judgements, if any, does the story pass on what happens within itself?  Traditionally, this assessment has constituted a dealbreaker for many culturally-isolationist Christians, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be addressed with a little more nuance.  Assessing a story’s truth means evaluating its themes, messages, and assumptions about existence.  Is there a God-, Christ-, or Holy Spirit-figure?  If so, what does the story say about him/her/it?  Are there moral absolutes?  If so, what are their implications?  That kinda stuff.

This isn’t meant to be some kinda exhaustive checklist — the story itself should drive my assessment thereof.  If you read some of the reviews I and others have written for SpecFaith, I hope you don’t get the sense that the stories in question are being shoved through some kind of rigid sieve.  It’s honest reactions that SpecFaith is after.

As for cussing, SpecFaith is an all-ages-and-maturity-levels venue, so Culturally Frowned-Upon Expletives will need to be removed or replaced (perhaps with Culturally-Smiled-Upon Expletives, goshdarnit!).  Just keep in mind the stipulation that reviews be “mindful of the grace and truth Jesus Christ modeled for His people” (i.e. no ad hominem or mean-spirited attacks), and you should be fine.  EXAMPLE:  Instead of saying “Attack of the Clones proves that George Lucas is a [bleep]ing imbecile and should be put out to pasture,” I could say “Attack of the Clones appears to be a sobering example of the ravages wreaked by complacency on a once-creative mind,” and then follow that statement up with specific examples of what I mean.

Anyway, I hope this all makes sense, and that you’ll join me in submitting reviews to SpecFaith!