Writing and Talking About History > Resources for Writing Papers > Requirements for a Book Review

Requirements for a Book Review

While a book review present CONTENT, it focuses on EVALUATION in an attempt to answer the two-part question: "Is this a book worth reading? Why?"

Requirements
Additional Instructions
On the first date listed in the calendar for the book review
On the second date listed in the calendar for the book review
A Quick Double-Check

Your 3-4 page (approximately 750-1000 word) book review should include (in whatever order best suits your style, your book and your thesis):

1. A thesis. A good review – like any good essay – has a clear thesis which the entire paper argues and supports with evidence. For example: The author has written an intriguing book but fails to provide adequate evident to support her argument.

2. An explanation of:

a. the author’s thesis and supporting arguments and evidence. (Do not shortchange this critical element. It will likely weave itself throughout your review.)
b. the author’s approach (e.g., is the book a biography? Is it social history? military? political?)
c. your assessment of each

• Look carefully at the book’s introduction and preface.
• Read the book for thesis/argument, not just facts.
• Do not criticize the author for not writing the book YOU would have written. (It is, however, valuable to not what would have made the book stronger.

3. An evaluation of the author’s sources.

• Consider type, quality, and use of sources (keeping in mind the author’s purpose and intended audience).
• Does the author have adequate sources? Does he/she use them to present a convincing argument? Are only secondary sources used? If so, are their exclusive use suitable for the book? Are interviews and manuscripts used (if appropriate for the topic)? Do sources indicate the author has written a scholarly work if the author presents it as one?
• Consider use – an usefulness – of footnotes (or endnotes) and bibliography. If either is missing, does that affect the book? (Consider author’s purpose and reader’s needs. Not every book needs documentation or was intended for an audience requiring it).

back to top^

4. An explanation of the book’s (a) organization and (b) contents.

• Is the book arranged chronologically, topically, or some variation? Is this the best arrangement to accomplish the author’s goal?
• Do NOT try to summarize every point in the book, BUT be sure to provide a clear sense of what the book’s contents are. Who wants to read a book if he/she does not know what is in it?
  Reviewers can often combine comments about contents with comments about thesis and organization. For example, a discussion of contents can provide information about how those contents are organized.
• Consider use – and usefulness – of index, appendices, photographs, charts, etc. Are they necessary? Helpful? Used properly? If they are not used, should they be? [If these parts of the book are not major ingredients or if there is nothing special to say about them, comment carefully, perhaps making your comments "in passing" as you focus on other elements. For example: "A strength of Smith’s book, which offers readers a minimal index and standard photographs, is it wisely selected and useful maps." And if the book has no index (for example), do not merely write, "It has no index"; do not mention a point unless you have some reason for doing so, which you must explain.
   

5. RELEVANT information about the author (such as profession, training, other works, politics, sex, religion, reputation).

• Who is your author? Is he/she an historian (or journalist or political scientist or participant? Etc.)
• Don’t force irrelevant material into your review. For example, that a noted scholar has a B.A. from Poduck U. is NOT helpful in evaluation his/her expertise, but that he/she has written five other books on the same general topic is.
• Biographical information can often be found in a book’s introduction or preface. Also look at Who Was Who, Who’s Who, Directory of American Scholars, Dictionary of American Biography, Notable American Women. And, take advantage of Biography and Genealogy Master Index and Biography Index, as well as New York Times obituaries. Check Simpson Library handout on biographical reference aids, and consult the National Union Catalog to find if the author has written other books.
• Throughout the review, consider whether the author is guided by values, biases, background, etc., rather than by objectivity/neutrality/facts. If there are not biases, there is no need to write, "The author has no biases." And be careful not to equate "bias" with interpretation."

back to top^

6. RELEVANT information about the book (e.g., when it was first published, what edition you are reviewing [if other than the first], whether the book is unique in it field, how it can be compared to other works you are familiar with, which works supplement it and vice versa.)

• As in other sections, do not make a comment about the book unless you have a reason for doing so.
• Demonstrate wherever possible your familiarity with the other works on your work’s topic, how the book’s interpretation compares with other on the same or related topic, and how your book contributes to the literature on its topic. (HISTORIOGRAPHY)
• You are the "expert" on your topic. Analyze the value of your book in relation to other works; do not treat it as if it existed in a vacuum.
• What does your book reveal about the need for future research? What research opportunities does it encourage or suggest?

7. Analysis of the author’s writing style (one or two can often suffice).

How readable is the book? Does the author have an easy-to-follow style? Does his/her style fit the audience at which the book is aimed? Does the style have any notable peculiarities (good or bad)?

If style can best be explained only through a sample, provide a quotation that epitomizes that author’s style.

8. Whether you recommend the books to others and why.

What type of reader should use this book? WHY?

Is it a book for someone new to its topic? Is it a book for experts? Is it a book for the general educated review? (Do not view [and review] your book as something only researchers might use just because you are using it for research. Would someone "merely" studying its topic find it valuable?) Is it a book that is valuable but only if read with other works? If so, what other works?

back to top^

Additional Instructions

If one of the above considerations does not apply to your book, do not force it into your review.
Do NOT quote at length, but if you quote, document with page numbers in parentheses in the text. [See parenthetical notes.]

This is one of those rare time when historians do NOT use footnotes/endnotes
(except for certain journals). However, they provide page numbers ONLY for the words they quote, not for facts and ideas (which obviously come from the book being reviewed.

The "title" of your review should be the bibliographic entry for your book. Use Turabian and handout on Turabian.

Do not use first person.

As with all formal essays, your review must provide the reader with all necessary information (e.g., author’s full name, book’s full title) and must observe requirements of an essay.

back to top^

On the first date listed in the calendar for the book review:

• TURN IN TWO COPIES, WITH THE PEER-REVIEW FROM ATTACHED TO THE FRONT OF ONE COPY. (Due at the Instructor’s office before class – or as assigned.)
• MARK PASSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS.
• PICK UP ANTOHER STUDENT’S PAPER FOR OUT-OF-CLASS REVIEW.
• ARRANGE MEETING WITH INSTRUCTOR TO REVIEW PAPER AND REVIEWER’S COMMENTS.

back to top^

• IN CLASS, TURN IN ONE COPY OF A REVISED REVIEW, IN A 2-POCKET FOLDER WITH INSTRUCTION SHEETS, ORIGINAL REVIEW, PEER REVIEW, AND CHECKLIST.

back to top^

A Quick Double-Check
 
1. What material does the book cover? (The summary should be brief; it is often woven into the overall review – at least in part – rather than covered in one section.)

2. What is the author’s thesis and major supporting arguments? How well does the author support the thesis? (Consider the author’s use of evidence and the soundness of the author’s reasoning.)3. How is the book organized? Does this organization work well?

4.What is the author’s "approach"?

5. Who is the author and what are his/her biases (if any)?

6. What are the literary qualities of the book? Is it well-written? On what level is it written? For what audience is it intended? Is it best suited for?

7. What does the book add to the understanding of the subject?

8. If you have read other books on the same general topic, how does this book compare? Most importantly, how does the interpretation (thesis) of this book differ from that of others?

back to top^