Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed,
and some few to be chewed and digested;
that is, some books are to be read only in parts;
others to be read but not curiously;
and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Some books also may be read by deputy, and extracts made of them by others.
--Francis Bacon
In the course syllabus you have listed certain elements that should be part of
your book review. This page briefly goes over my philosophy toward critically
reading a book. I assign book reviews for two reasons: 1) so that students will
get a richer perspective on certain aspects of the
course subject; and 2) to improve critical thinking skills. The discussion of
elements below expands on what is contained in your course syllabus. Included
is an example of what I am looking for in a book review.
NOTE: The following guidelines are for book reviews for my courses. Other instructors will have different preference and requirements, and you should always make sure to know what those are before turning in any work.
Philosophy
All of us read in the various ways described by
Bacon four centuries ago. Back then there were many fewer books--the printing
press was slightly over a hundred years old when Bacon was born. Yet, even then
he could make the assertion that some books had more to say than others. How
much truer that is today. Walk into a major book retailer and head for the
"self-help" section, or the "diet" or "current
fiction" areas. Stroll around the remainders' table, where coffee table
books are sold almost by the pound. There is a book for every taste.
When an instructor assigns a book (or books) in a course, he or she invariably hopes that it will be, as Bacon put it, "chewed and digested," but expects that most students will merely "taste" it. And, indeed, it would be foolish to expect that every book assigned will hold the interest of every student assigned to read it. All of which is not to say that a student cannot master the contents of the book and critically appraise its value, despite disliking the contents.
Mastery of content and appraisal of value is what a book review is all about. Unlike the elementary and secondary school book report, designed to extract a digest of the book from a student, the book review seeks a critical evaluation. When I assign a book review, I seek not just a summary of the contents, but an analysis of the arguments and of the degree to which the author effectively communicated his ideas. I do not care whether you liked the book or not, only that you can clearly communicate to me in writing why you liked or disliked it.
Elements
Just as every book is different, so every review will be different. There
is no cookie-cutter approach to writing a book review. Your appraisal of a book
must be tailored to the work. There are, however, five elements that every
review should address to one degree or another: 1) thesis; 2) content; 3)
organization; 4) sources; 5) value. Other elements may or may not be addressed,
depending on the quality and intention of the book, such as size, appearance,
and illustrations.
1. Thesis. No matter how pedestrian or lofty, every book has a purpose. Sometimes it is easy to figure out the purpose of book from its title or its table of contents; often, it is not. The obvious purpose of telling the story of the Persian Gulf War may conceal the author's secret purpose of exposing the ineptness of United Nations policing functions, the American government's preoccupation with protecting the interests of its multinationals operating in the Middle East, or extolling the virtues of high-tech weaponry.
The places to look for a better picture of an author's intentions are the foreword, preface, and introduction of a book. Authors, or people with some claim to insight into the author's purpose, often use these sections of a book to explain what motivated research of a particular subject from a particular perspective. You skip these sections at the risk of not fully understanding the author's intention.
Your book review should explicitly state what you believe to be the author's thesis and perspective. Your review should then go on to discuss the major arguments made by the author in support of his thesis.
2. Content. Along with explaining what the author is up to, the reviewer should present a brief summary of what the author actually says. Discussing the contents of a book involves explaining the extent and depth of the subject matter. Who are the main players? What are they doing? How are they doing whatever they are doing?
Students should not get caught up in excessive detail in this section. Remember, you are not writing a digest of what you read, so keep the explanation of the contents down to two or three paragraphs at most.
An additional important question to consider about a book's contents is whether or not sufficient information was provided to make the author's case. If the author is claiming to write a strategic history of World War II and does not include a discussion of submarine warfare, has he really met his own purpose? If he only discusses German submarine warfare, has he done the job?
3. Organization. It is important to understand how the book's content is organized. It is in discussing the organization of the book that you evaluate how effective an author was in presenting his material.
Although chronology is always important in a history book, there are some which have an overarching thematic organization. Pay close attention to how the book is organized and judge whether that helped or hindered the author's major arguments.
Poorly organized books can be identified by repetitiousness, disjointedness, and an absence of balance among the parts. A well organized book, on the other hand, can be read quickly and easily and the contents will make an impression. Of course some of these attributes may also be due to your own preferences and background knowledge, so you must be careful in figuring out why you think the book is or is not well organized.
4. Sources. This is one of the toughest elements to deal with in a student book review. While you have a good idea of what the book is about, the author's attitudes, and whether it made sense or not, you feel unqualified to say anything about sources. After all, you are just a student.
Amazingly, there are things you can say about the sources, even as a student without much background knowledge. You can tell, for instance, whether the book was based primarily on the work of other writers or on an analysis of original documents. You can also tell if the author employs some sources more than others. Finally, you can say whether the author made unfounded assertions or backed all arguments presented with solid evidence.
This section of the review need not be long. It does not even need to be a separate section. A sentence or two as you discuss other elements of the book might be more than enough. On the other hand, if you are particularly impressed with the author's use of sources, you might want to devote a substantial amount of space to it. Keep in mind, however, that what you have to say about documentation is not a count of the number of footnotes or the pages of bibliography.
5. Value. Some students are very happy to tell me what they thought of the book. Others try to guess what I want to read, and tailor their remarks accordingly. Many students feel unqualified to give a book a bad appraisal. To all of you, all I can say is, honesty is the best policy.
I want to know how you feel about a book and why. That means that I do not expect every student to like every book. Some of the best class discussions of books have resulted from readings that half the class hated and the other half loved. If you found the book boring, say so, but also say why you could not stay awake. If you found the book deeply meaningful, state the major insight(s) it provided you.
It is in this concluding part of the review, where you will give some indication of the best audience for the book. I want to know what you think. Did you feel the book should only be read by other historians or could the general public get something out of it? Did it help you better make sense of course material or was it irrelevant.
Please note that the review should not be in a question and answer format, in which each of the above elements is treated as a question that you must answer directly. Try to infuse your review with some grace.
Mechanics
Book reviews have a different "look" in some respects than longer
written assignments. For one thing, they should have no cover page. They will
have no footnotes or bibliography. As a matter of fact, all of the information
about the book you are reviewing should be placed at the top of the review.
E.g.:
San Antonio de Béxar: A Community on New Spain's Northern Frontier. By Jesús F. de la Teja. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1995.
1. The header of the review consists of the title of the book, followed by the author's name, then by the publication information (place, name of press, date).
2. The body of the review should be double-spaced, with one-inch margins on all sides. The first page of the review should not be numbered, only the second (and third) page.
3. After skipping a line at the end of the review, you should type your name along the right margin, with the course title and semester immediately below. E.g.
|
Jesús
F. de la Teja |
Visit the GRAMMAR AND SPELLING page for additional suggestions on presenting an effective paper.
Have a question? Contact me at jd10@txstate.edu
Return to homepage
Books are made not like children but like pyramids . . .
and theyre just as useless!
and they stay in the desert!
. . . Jackals piss at their foot and the bourgeois climb up on them.--Gustave Flaubert