What Book Qualities to Look for Before Reviewing

What this handout is well-nigh

This handout volition assist you write a book review, a report or essay that offers a disquisitional perspective on a text. It offers a process and suggests some strategies for writing volume reviews.

What is a review?

A review is a critical evaluation of a text, outcome, object, or miracle. Reviews can consider books, articles, entire genres or fields of literature, architecture, fine art, style, restaurants, policies, exhibitions, performances, and many other forms. This handout will focus on volume reviews. For a like assignment, see our handout on literature reviews.

Above all, a review makes an statement. The most of import element of a review is that it is a commentary, non just a summary. It allows you lot to enter into dialogue and word with the work's creator and with other audiences. You can offer agreement or disagreement and identify where yous detect the piece of work exemplary or deficient in its noesis, judgments, or arrangement. You lot should clearly state your stance of the work in question, and that statement volition probably resemble other types of academic writing, with a thesis statement, supporting body paragraphs, and a determination.

Typically, reviews are brief. In newspapers and academic journals, they rarely exceed 1000 words, although y'all may encounter lengthier assignments and extended commentaries. In either instance, reviews need to exist succinct. While they vary in tone, subject, and manner, they share some mutual features:

• First, a review gives the reader a concise summary of the content. This includes a relevant clarification of the topic as well as its overall perspective, argument, or purpose.
• 2nd, and more importantly, a review offers a critical cess of the content. This involves your reactions to the work under review: what strikes you equally noteworthy, whether or not information technology was effective or persuasive, and how it enhanced your understanding of the issues at hand.
• Finally, in addition to analyzing the work, a review ofttimes suggests whether or not the audition would appreciate information technology.

Becoming an expert reviewer: three brusque examples

Reviewing can be a daunting task. Someone has asked for your opinion about something that yous may experience unqualified to evaluate. Who are yous to criticize Toni Morrison's new book if you've never written a novel yourself, much less won a Nobel Prize? The point is that someone—a professor, a journal editor, peers in a report grouping—wants to know what you retrieve virtually a particular work. You may not be (or feel like) an practiced, merely you lot need to pretend to be 1 for your detail audience. Nobody expects yous to be the intellectual equal of the work's creator, but your careful observations tin provide you with the raw textile to make reasoned judgments. Tactfully voicing agreement and disagreement, praise and criticism, is a valuable, challenging skill, and like many forms of writing, reviews crave you to provide concrete evidence for your assertions.

Consider the following brief book review written for a history course on medieval Europe past a pupil who is fascinated with beer:

Judith Bennett's Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women's Work in a Irresolute Earth, 1300-1600, investigates how women used to mash and sell the majority of ale drunk in England. Historically, ale and beer (non milk, wine, or water) were important elements of the English diet. Ale brewing was low-skill and low status labor that was complimentary to women'due south domestic responsibilities. In the early on fifteenth century, brewers began to make ale with hops, and they called this new beverage "beer." This technique allowed brewers to produce their beverages at a lower cost and to sell information technology more easily, although women generally stopped brewing once the business organisation became more than profitable.

The student describes the discipline of the book and provides an accurate summary of its contents. Only the reader does non learn some key information expected from a review: the writer's argument, the educatee's appraisal of the book and its argument, and whether or not the student would recommend the volume. As a critical assessment, a volume review should focus on opinions, non facts and details. Summary should exist kept to a minimum, and specific details should serve to illustrate arguments.

Now consider a review of the same book written by a slightly more than opinionated student:

Judith Bennett's Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women'due south Work in a Irresolute World, 1300-1600 was a colossal disappointment. I wanted to know about the rituals surrounding drinking in medieval England: the songs, the games, the parties. Bennett provided none of that data. I liked how the book showed ale and beer brewing as an economic activeness, merely the reader gets lost in the details of prices and wages. I was more interested in the private lives of the women brewsters. The volume was divided into eight long capacity, and I can't imagine why anyone would ever desire to read it.

There's no shortage of judgments in this review! But the educatee does not display a working noesis of the volume'due south argument. The reader has a sense of what the student expected of the volume, merely no sense of what the author herself set up out to prove. Although the student gives several reasons for the negative review, those examples do not clearly chronicle to each other as office of an overall evaluation—in other words, in support of a specific thesis. This review is indeed an assessment, but not a critical one.

Here is one final review of the same book:

One of feminism's paradoxes—one that challenges many of its optimistic histories—is how patriarchy remains persistent over time. While Judith Bennett'south Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women's Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 recognizes medieval women as historical actors through their ale brewing, it too shows that female bureau had its limits with the advent of beer. I had assumed that those limits were religious and political, but Bennett shows how a "patriarchal equilibrium" close women out of economic life also. Her analysis of women's wages in ale and beer production proves that a change in women'southward work does not equate to a change in working women'due south status. Contemporary feminists and historians alike should read Bennett's book and think twice when they crevice open up their next brewsky.

This student's review avoids the bug of the previous two examples. It combines balanced opinion and physical instance, a critical assessment based on an explicitly stated rationale, and a recommendation to a potential audience. The reader gets a sense of what the book's author intended to demonstrate. Moreover, the pupil refers to an argument about feminist history in general that places the book in a specific genre and that reaches out to a general audience. The example of analyzing wages illustrates an argument, the analysis engages significant intellectual debates, and the reasons for the overall positive review are plainly visible. The review offers criteria, opinions, and support with which the reader can agree or disagree.

Developing an assessment: before y'all write

There is no definitive method to writing a review, although some critical thinking about the piece of work at mitt is necessary earlier you really brainstorm writing. Thus, writing a review is a two-stride procedure: developing an argument about the work nether consideration, and making that argument as you write an organized and well-supported draft. Run into our handout on argument.

What follows is a series of questions to focus your thinking as you dig into the work at mitt. While the questions specifically consider book reviews, you can hands transpose them to an assay of performances, exhibitions, and other review subjects. Don't feel obligated to accost each of the questions; some will be more relevant than others to the book in question.

• What is the thesis—or master statement—of the book? If the author wanted you to get 1 idea from the volume, what would it be? How does it compare or dissimilarity to the world you know? What has the book accomplished?
• What exactly is the subject field or topic of the book? Does the author cover the field of study adequately? Does the writer cover all aspects of the subject in a counterbalanced manner? What is the approach to the subject field (topical, belittling, chronological, descriptive)?
• How does the author support her argument? What testify does she use to prove her point? Do yous observe that evidence disarming? Why or why not? Does whatever of the author's data (or conclusions) conflict with other books you've read, courses you lot've taken or merely previous assumptions you had of the subject area?
• How does the author structure her statement? What are the parts that make upwardly the whole? Does the argument make sense? Does information technology persuade you? Why or why not?
• How has this book helped you understand the subject area? Would you lot recommend the book to your reader?

Beyond the internal workings of the book, y'all may also consider some information most the author and the circumstances of the text's production:

• Who is the author? Nationality, political persuasion, training, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details about how a work takes shape. Does information technology thing, for instance, that the biographer was the subject area'southward best friend? What divergence would information technology brand if the writer participated in the events she writes about?
• What is the book's genre? Out of what field does information technology emerge? Does information technology conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or literary standard on which to base your evaluations. If y'all are reviewing the showtime volume always written on the subject, it will be important for your readers to know. Proceed in mind, though, that naming "firsts"—aslope naming "bests" and "onlys"—can be a risky business organization unless you lot're admittedly certain.

Writing the review

Once you have made your observations and assessments of the work under review, carefully survey your notes and attempt to unify your impressions into a statement that volition describe the purpose or thesis of your review. Cheque out our handout on thesis statements. Then, outline the arguments that support your thesis.

Your arguments should develop the thesis in a logical style. That logic, unlike more standard bookish writing, may initially emphasize the author's statement while y'all develop your own in the course of the review. The relative emphasis depends on the nature of the review: if readers may be more interested in the work itself, you lot may want to make the piece of work and the writer more prominent; if you want the review to be about your perspective and opinions, then y'all may construction the review to privilege your observations over (but never split from) those of the work nether review. What follows is just i of many ways to organize a review.

Introduction

Since about reviews are brief, many writers begin with a catchy quip or anecdote that succinctly delivers their statement. Simply you can introduce your review differently depending on the argument and audience. The Writing Center's handout on introductions tin assistance yous find an approach that works. In general, you should include:

• The proper name of the writer and the book title and the main theme.
• Relevant details about who the author is and where he/she stands in the genre or field of inquiry. Y'all could as well link the title to the subject to bear witness how the championship explains the subject affair.
• The context of the volume and/or your review. Placing your review in a framework that makes sense to your audition alerts readers to your "take" on the book. Perhaps you want to situate a book about the Cuban revolution in the context of Common cold State of war rivalries between the United States and the Soviet Marriage. Some other reviewer might want to consider the book in the framework of Latin American social movements. Your pick of context informs your statement.
• The thesis of the book. If you lot are reviewing fiction, this may be difficult since novels, plays, and short stories rarely have explicit arguments. Simply identifying the volume's item novelty, bending, or originality allows y'all to show what specific contribution the piece is trying to make.
• Your thesis nearly the volume.

Summary of content

This should be brief, as analysis takes priority. In the form of making your cess, yous'll hopefully be backing upwardly your assertions with concrete evidence from the book, and then some summary will be dispersed throughout other parts of the review.

The necessary amount of summary too depends on your audience. Graduate students, beware! If yous are writing book reviews for colleagues—to prepare for comprehensive exams, for example—you may want to devote more attention to summarizing the volume's contents. If, on the other hand, your audience has already read the book—such as a grade assignment on the aforementioned work—you may take more than liberty to explore more than subtle points and to emphasize your ain argument. Run across our handout on summary for more tips.

Assay and evaluation of the volume

Your analysis and evaluation should be organized into paragraphs that bargain with single aspects of your argument. This arrangement tin can be challenging when your purpose is to consider the book as a whole, but it can assist y'all differentiate elements of your criticism and pair assertions with testify more clearly. You do not necessarily need to work chronologically through the book equally yous discuss information technology. Given the statement y'all want to make, you lot can organize your paragraphs more than usefully by themes, methods, or other elements of the volume. If you lot find it useful to include comparisons to other books, keep them brief so that the book under review remains in the spotlight. Avoid excessive quotation and requite a specific page reference in parentheses when you do quote. Think that you can state many of the author's points in your own words.

Conclusion

Sum up or restate your thesis or make the final judgment regarding the volume. You lot should non innovate new testify for your statement in the conclusion. Yous can, however, innovate new ideas that go beyond the book if they extend the logic of your own thesis. This paragraph needs to residuum the book's strengths and weaknesses in order to unify your evaluation. Did the trunk of your review have three negative paragraphs and one favorable ane? What practice they all add up to? The Writing Eye's handout on conclusions tin can aid you make a concluding cess.

In review

Finally, a few full general considerations:

• Review the book in front of y'all, not the volume you wish the author had written. You can and should signal out shortcomings or failures, but don't criticize the volume for not beingness something it was never intended to be.
• With any luck, the author of the book worked hard to observe the right words to express her ideas. You should attempt to do the aforementioned. Precise language allows y'all to control the tone of your review.
• Never hesitate to challenge an assumption, approach, or argument. Be certain, however, to cite specific examples to back up your assertions carefully.
• Endeavour to present a counterbalanced argument about the value of the book for its audience. You're entitled—and sometimes obligated—to vox strong understanding or disagreement. Simply proceed in mind that a bad book takes as long to write every bit a good one, and every writer deserves fair handling. Harsh judgments are difficult to prove and tin give readers the sense that you were unfair in your assessment.
• A great place to learn well-nigh book reviews is to look at examples. The New York Times Sunday Book Review and The New York Review of Books can evidence you how professional writers review books.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive listing of resource on the handout's topic, and we encourage you to do your ain research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, every bit it may not lucifer the commendation manner you lot are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please run into the UNC Libraries commendation tutorial. We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Drewry, John. 1974. Writing Book Reviews. Boston: Greenwood Printing.

Hoge, James. 1987. Literary Reviewing. Charlottesville: University Virginia of Printing.

Sova, Dawn, and Harry Teitelbaum. 2002. How to Write Volume Reports, 4th ed. Lawrenceville, NY: Thomson/Arco.

Walford, A.J. 1986. Reviews and Reviewing: A Guide. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

---

This work is licensed nether a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License.
You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you utilise the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, Academy of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Brand a Gift

elsberryprepertion63.blogspot.com

Source: https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/book-reviews/

Share this post