Book Review Instructions

You have been asked to compose two book reviews in this class. This sort of assignment requires you both to report the main arguments and evidence of a book, AND evaluate the book’s arguments and use of evidence. Your paper should follow the standard requirements of a college-level thesis statement and should be about 750-1000 words long.

Your paper should cover the following elements: first, a clear identification of the author’s main point, or THESIS; second, the DEVELOPMENT, or the manner in which the author proves the thesis; finally, your CRITIQUE of the work.

1. The thesis is the unifying principle of the whole book. It is the central argument that the author intends to unpack and prove. Although most good authors make numerous arguments in a history book, there is typically one central, defining idea that ties everything together. You will need to identify and thoroughly communicate the author’s central thesis in your own words. If you find a sentence that you believe directly identifies the thesis, that’s fine! However, do not merely put the thesis in quotes. You must use your own words.

2. The development is how the author goes about elaborating upon and backing up his thesis. Here is where you identify the historian’s use of sources. Here also is where you consider the conclusions the author draws from the sources he is using. Although you will need to summarize the major points made by the author as you describe the book’s development, you will need to go beyond merely reporting what the author says and moving into the realm of analyzing and critiquing what he or she says. Consider the nature of the historical evidence used. Consider the organization of the book. Consider the topics addressed, as well as the topics left untreated.

3. The critique is not a criticism of the book. Instead, it is your evaluation of the book’s thesis, use of evidence, organization, overall effectiveness, and contribution to the study of history in general. In your critique, you will consider whether a particular point of view (normally a neutral necessity) and/or a particular bias or prejudice (normally an avoidable negative) shaped the author’s arguments and use of evidence. You will also consider whether the book is well-written and useful for the student, the general reader, or only the advanced specialist.

You will need to be careful about your tone as you discuss your critique. You need to avoid gushing (if you loved it) or ranting (if you hated it). Although you should freely express your overall assessment of it (and the reasons why you are assessing it as such), use even-toned, academic language (generally meaning avoiding “I” statements). You are making a scholarly argument and should approach your topic (and your readers) with scholarly respect.

Remember that plagiarism is utterly unacceptable and will result at least in a zero for this assignment, and potentially a failure in the course and a report to appropriate authorities. Any sort of cutting and pasting or presenting someone else’s work as your own is plagiarism.

Of course you will be using quotes from the book to back up your ideas. However, make sure your paper uses quotes sparingly, and only when the author’s particular words are useful to cite in your paper. It is usually better to rely on summarizing (in your own words), because that demonstrates to me that you really do understand the material, and it allows for a smoother reading experience. Follow Turabian format for in-paper citations

Although there is no one way to write a book review/analysis/critique, you may want to follow the following structure:

Introductory paragraph: Orient your reader to your topic. Lead up to, and state, the author’s central thesis. Provide a general ‘map’ for how the rest of your paper will be structured. State, in general, your own final assessment of the book’s overall effectiveness

Body: Focus on the development of the book, being sure to consistently refer back to the author’s central thesis as you unpack his or her sub-arguments and use of evidence. Note instances of especially insightful contributions and/or instances of bias or poor argumentation. The body will be a combination of a summary of the author’s work and your analysis of the different pieces of his work – his arguments, evidence, structure, point of view, etc.

You can structure your body a couple of different ways: you can follow the ‘arguments’ all the way through the book in one paragraph, then go on to his ‘use of evidence’ all the way through the book in the next paragraph, then his ‘structure,’ then his ‘point of view,’ then your notes of ‘insightful contributions,’ etc.

OR, you can spend the first part of your body (several paragraphs-worth) summarizing the key arguments and use of evidence in the three different parts of the book. While providing this summary, you can intersperse your more analytical comments as you go, remarking on how a particular argument used evidence well, or how a particular argument seemed to express a certain negative bias, or how the ordering of arguments followed (or did not follow) a good structure. This way is harder to write well, but will make a better paper, since you are weaving different elements together rather than treating every single element in isolation. However, if you follow this second structure, you should still write several paragraphs beyond the primarily ‘summarizing’ paragraphs, making more concentrated notes on use of evidence, structure, overall effectiveness, etc.

(My suggestion – take many notes while you read, and as you take notes and think through what structure for your paper will best serve your purposes, you will discover the best structure. Starting with a structure/outline written in stone and trying to make the parts fit in often doesn’t work as well).

Conclusion: Here is where you focus your critique of the work overall. Referring back to the author’s central thesis and the important observations you had already made in the body of your paper concerning your analysis of the development of the book, write a concluding paragraph that offers your overall evaluation of this book’s contribution to the study of the history of whatever subject the book is about. If you have positive statements, make sure they are backed up. If you have negative statements, make sure you offer possible alternatives. (For example, if you think the structure of the book is ineffective, be sure to posit what you believe would be a better structure). If you think the author did not effectively support his or her thesis, be sure to propose what sort of evidence and argumentation you would have needed in order to feel more comfortable with the author’s central thesis.

Although conclusions are traditionally one paragraph long, you may discover you need more than one paragraph to effectively offer your full critique and conclude.

Helpful Hints on Writing Book Reviews from Indiana University Bloomington
A book review tells not only what a book is about, but also how successful it is at what it is trying to do. Professors often assign book reviews as practice in careful analytical reading.
As a reviewer, you bring together the two strands of accurate, analytical reading and strong, personal response when you indicate what the book is about and what it might mean to a reader (by explaining what it meant to you). In other words, reviewers answer not only the WHAT but the SO WHAT question about a book. Thus, in writing a review, you combine the skills of describing what is on the page, analyzing how the book tried to achieve its purpose, and expressing your own reactions.
READING THE BOOK
As you’re reading or preparing to write the review, ask yourself these questions:

What are the author’s viewpoint and purpose?
The viewpoint or purpose may be implied rather than stated, but often a good place to look for what the author says about his or her purpose and viewpoint is the introduction or preface.

What are the author’s main points?
Again, these will often be stated in the introduction.

What kind of evidence does the author use to prove his or her points? Is the evidence convincing?
Why or why not? Does the author support his or her points adequately?

How does this book relate to other books on the same topic?
Is the book unique? Does it add new information? What group of readers, if any, would find this book most useful?

Does the author have the necessary expertise to write the book?
What are the most appropriate criteria by which to judge the book? How successful do you think the author was in carrying out the overall purposes of the book?
Depending on your book’s purpose, you should select appropriate criteria by which to judge its success. Use any criteria your instructor has given you in lecture or on your assignment sheet. Otherwise, here are some criteria to consider. For example, if an author says his or her purpose is to argue for a particular solution to a public problem, such as school reform or international relations, then the review should judge whether the author has defined the problem, identified causes, planned points of attack, provided necessary background information and offered specific solutions. A review should also indicate the author’s professional expertise.
In other books, however, authors may argue for their theory about a particular phenomenon. Reviews of these books should evaluate what kind of theory the book is arguing for, how much and what kind of evidence the author uses to support his/her scholarly claims, how valid the evidence seems, how expert the author is, and how much the book contributes to the knowledge of the field.
Reviewers get to the heart of their writing—their evaluation of the book. In this section, reviewers discuss a variety of issues:
• how well the book has achieved its goal,
• what possibilities are suggested by the book,
• what the book has left out,
• how the book compares to others on the subject,
• what specific points are not convincing.
It is important to carefully distinguish your views from the author’s, so that you don’t confuse your reader.
Like other essays, book reviews usually end with a conclusion which ties together issues raised in the review and provides a concise comment on the book.
There is, of course, no set formula, but a general rule of thumb is that the first one-half to two-thirds of the review should summarize the author’s main ideas and at least one-third should evaluate the book.

Category: Essays