Fundamental components:
What book is about.
Situate it in
existing literature (not necessarily at length). This is essential:
you must be aware of the historiographical context and make this explicit.
How does this work relate to the field as a whole? What does it contribute
to it?
Background of
author, if appropriate.
Communicate valuable
points: future knowledge of the book by the audience depends on this,
you have this responsibility.
Express your opinion,
but don't let feelings prevent you from conveying the contents faithfully.
Separate discussion
of content from discussion of opinion. This is the best way to avoid
misrepresentation.
Make reader wait
before you tell them how you feel about the book.
Avoid a review
that presents your views on topic rather than the content of the book.
You must put yourself in the position of the author.
Nevertheless,
you don't want to produce a review that is nothing but a summary. You
should make your presence felt.
Readers want to
know what the book is about and whether he/she should read it or not.
"Any review is better than no review."
If you like the
book, don't seek out things to criticize.
When assessing
a book review you should consider:
How successfully does it present the content of the book to a person
who has not read it?
To what extent does the review engage the reader's interest? .
How successfully does it attach the book to a body of literature or
an issue?
What kind of history is it?
What does it contribute to that field?
How successful is the reviewer in making know his/her opinion of the
book?
How well written is this revew? why? what are the problems? how can
it be improved?
Footnotes: put
pages of book you are reviewing in parentheses, footnote other books
mentioned.
Fundamental components:
Not an assessment
of a single work, must discuss multiple works.
But, not just
a series of book reviews: Deal with a problem, issue, field.
Must set for the
problem from the outset, within the first paragraphs.
Must fit the problem
into the existing literature, not including the works under consideration.
Discuss each book
only in so far as it bears on this topic, problem, issue.
You don't have
to explain everything about the book.
Don't try to convey
the flavor of the book.
You don't have
to be fair here. You don't have to give each book equal time. The problem
is central, deal with each book as it contributes to that issue.
Indicate what
you think of the book in general with an adjective or so, but this is
not primary function.
Integrate books
discussed into the essay smoothly. They should be woven therein.
When assessing
a review essay you should consider:
How well is the
problem set forth?
How is the problem fit into the existing literature, not including the
works under consideration?
How are books discussed integrated into the essay? They should be smoothly
woven therein.
Does discussion of the books distract the reader from the main theme?
What do we learn from this essay?
Was it worth the time to read it?
