Thirteenth-century depiction of the library at Baghdad.
(Note the books piled on shelves behind the scholars.)
Thirteenth-century depiction of the library at Baghdad.
(Note the books piled on shelves behind the scholars.)
Six
Tips for Writing Book Reviews
Dr.
Matt Kuefler
1. Read the whole book. Let your book review demonstrate that you have read the whole book. It is really easy to see when someone has not read the whole book in a book review, because there are detailed discussion of the first few chapters or the first and last chapters and then not much about the rest of the book. You should consider writing a separate paragraph about each of the chapters in the book, showing what the main argument to that chapter is, what topics are raised in it, and what historical sources are used to support its claims.
2. Don't just summarize, but also analyze the book. The purpose behind the book reviews is to give you an opportunity to use some of the insights from class and your studies more broadly and apply them to what you read. So think about some of the themes that were mentioned in lectures or raised in discussions, and after you have finished summarizing the chapters, add some paragraphs in which you describe how some of these themes were either incorporated into the book or ignored in it. You might also think about and describe what theoretical approaches seem to be strongest in the book overall; perhaps theorists were mentioned specifically in it as being influential to the author's arguments. At least a third of your book review should be a critical analysis, even if the other two-thirds of it is a summary of the book.
What should you say about the book in your analysis?
Think about the books as not much more than long essays. What makes a good essay? I evaluate your essays on three major points, and you can use these same points to evaluate a book:
1. Ideas:
Does the book have a clear central thesis or argument? How would you sum up that thesis in a sentence or two? Likewise, each of the chapters should be like an extended version of the paragraph points in an essay. Does each chapter have a clear central point? Again, you should be able to summarize the main point of each chapter in a sentence or two. How does each chapter advance the overall argument of the book?
Once you have determined the overall argument or thesis for the book, and the main points of each chapter, you should think about how persuasive the argument is. Does the author convince you of his/her thesis? What seem to be the author's strongest points? What seem to be the author's weakest points?
When I am reading a book for the first time, I try to write out a summary in one or two paragraphs of the argument of each chapter as soon as I finish it, before I go onto the next chapter, so that I can keep the ideas in each of the chapters clearly separate in my mind. Then when I am finished the book, I look at my summaries of each of the chapters and try to summarize in one or two sentences the overall thesis of the book. Then I reread the introduction and conclusion to see if I can find the thesis clearly stated, and find out if I learn anything more about the author's intentions from that rereading.
2. Examples:
Historians' ideas are only as good as the examples they use from the historical record to support their ideas. Does the author use a range of examples as evidence for the points he/she is trying to make? Or does he/she make claims that seem unsubstantiated by the evidence? Does the author provide footnotes or endnotes that tell you clearly where you could look up the sources yourself, if you wanted to verify the information that he/she provides?
The historical record should not only be used by historians but used carefully. Does the author seem to be careful about reading the primary source or sources that provide his/her evidence? Does he/she look for biases or agendas in the sources? Does he/she look for possible errors of fact in the sources, or blindly assume that the sources are providing "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? Are the examples provided necessary to prove the point, or is there a lot of irrelevant detail included, detail that could have been omitted?
Again, when I am reading a book, I try to think about what the sources used as evidence are. Are they plentiful in number or scarce? Is there a lot of evidence for the claims made, or is much of it made through speculation? Do the sources seem biased or full of errors to me? I try to keep a list of the different sources used by the author, especially the ones heavily used.
3. Structure:
A third essential component to a good book (or a good essay, for that matter) is structure. Structure includes the outline of a book. Does the book have a clear outline, and does it flow smoothly from one point to another? Does the author do a good job of dividing his/her information into paragraphs, and does each paragraph have a clear topic sentence (the first sentence in each paragraph, that tells readers what the information in the paragraph will be and how it relates to the larger point of the chapter or book)? Is there an introduction, and does it clearly describe the intended project of the book? Is there a conclusion, and does it clearly describe the significance of the thesis, now that the author thinks it has been shown?
Structure also includes the writing style of the book. Is the author easy to read? Or is the book too dense, or filled with jargon or unfamiliar vocabulary? Is the author's writing style elegant, or simply functional? Most editors should catch grammatical and typographical errors, but sometimes these slip through the editing process, and can distract or confuse the reader. Are there errors like these?
I try to make a list of interesting sentences that I find in each book, sentences where something is stated in a particularly succinct or elegant or humorous way. I also make a list of things stated in a bizarre or confusing or convoluted way. Then I try to include some of these sentences in my reviews of books, so that my readers get a sense of the author at his/her best, or worst.
3. Organize your thoughts. A book review usually begins with a paragraph laying out the overall topic for a book and its overall argument (most authors spell out their overall argument in their introduction and/or their conclusion, so these are the best places to look for it). Then several paragraphs follow that typically summarize the chapters of the book. Then several paragraphs follow that analyze the book's arguments, or its use of sources, or other aspects. In any case, be sure to organize your thoughts, so that you don't have to repeat yourself (it is almost always a case of bad organization if you have to say "As I mentioned earlier," or something like that). It is easy enough to organize your summary paragraphs, as I suggested, by writing one paragraph for each of the chapters. Think about how you want to organize the paragraphs that analyze the book. Do you want to write a paragraph about what is strongest or most convincing in the book's arguments, and then another paragraph on what is weakest or least convincing? Do you want to write a paragraph about the theoretical influences on the author? Do you want to write a paragraph on how effectively (or not) the author used historical sources?
4. Give examples. The claims made by historians are only as good as the examples they can provide to back up those claims. So whether you are summarizing or analyzing the book, provide a few examples to make your points. If a chapter of the book tries to describe a number of individuals to see how they were affected by social trends, for example, describe one of those individuals in your paragraph about that chapter. If you are arguing that a particular theorist has influenced the author of the book, give a sample sentence or refer to a topic discussed in the book that shows that influence. Or if you are arguing that the book uses far too complicated ideas or too many unclear sentences, give an example or two that demonstrates these things.
5. Give proper credit. Any time you use the words of the book, you must put them in quotation marks. This applies even if you use only a few words in a row or a key phrase or a term coined by the author. Do not try simply to change one or two words in a sentence and claim it as your own. See the syllabus for the definition and consequences of plagiarism. Instead, simply put quotation marks around words borrowed from the book. Since you are supposed to make quotations flow smoothly into your own sentences, feel free to go in an out of quotations. But if you skip any words inside of a quotation, you need to use ellipses (three dots, separated by spaces on all sides) to reflect those omissions, and if you want to add words into a quotation, you must put them in square brackets. In the Chicago Style that historians use, it is not necessary to put ellipses at the start or at the end of quotations, even if it wasn't the start or even of the original sentence--instead, you are allowed to change the capitalization of the first letter of your quotation as needed, and to add whatever punctuation is needed at the end of the sentence. (For those of you who are familiar with the MLA style from literature courses, there are different rules for these things.) Whenever you quote from the book or make a reference to a specific part of the book, you should put the page number or numbers where these words or ideas can be found in parentheses at the end of the sentence (after the "close quotation mark," if it is a quotation, but before the period). Finally, quotations should be incorporated into your sentences and paragraphs. Only if you have quotations longer than five lines should they be separated out from the paragraph as block quotations--but these should be avoided in book reviews.
6. Follow the customs of historical writing. The actions of modern authors, including the author of the book you are reviewing, are always put into the present tense. In contrast, the actions of historical figures, including historical authors, are put into the past tense. All other historical actions are also put in past tense. All centuries are spelled in full. So it's always "nineteenth century" rather than "19th century." But years are spelled as numbers, so its 1984, etc. All non-English words, except for proper names and words that have become a part of English (like fiancé) are italicized or underlined (but not both). The title of the book should be italicized or underlined (but not both) whenever mentioned, but the titles of the books' chapters should put in quotation marks.