History Book Review Assignment 1
Need help with this assignment?Get an original answer from a qualified tutor — from $10/page.
Get it written →Guidelines for Book Reviews(Adapted from Mary Lnn Rampollas A Pocket Guide to Writing in History, 5th edition. Bedford/St. Martins, Boston, 2017.)Book reviews are an important type of historical assignment and a requisite skill of any historian. Book reviews demonstrate your ability to read a text critically and analytically. Students sometimes feel unqualified to complete such an assignment; after all, the author of the text is a professional historian. However, even if you cannot write from the same level of experience and knowledge as the author, you can write an effect review if you understand what the assignment requires.A review or a critique of a text begins with careful, active and critical reading.You should approach the text you are going to critique as an active reader, keeping the authors thesis in mind, noting the evidence he or she uses to support that thesis and noting your reactions and responses to the text as you go. Your review grows out of this active reading.A review or critique is not the same things as a book report, which simply summarizes the content of a book. Nor does a critique merely report your reaction (i.e., this book was boring or I liked this article.) Rather, when writing a review or critique, you not only report on the content of the text and your response to it but also assess its strength and weaknesses. So, for example, it is not enough to say This book is not very good; you need to explain and/or justify your reaction through an analysis of the text. Did you find the book unconvincing because the author did not supply enough evidence to support his or her assertions? Is the logic faulty? Finally, you should note that critical does not mean negative. If a book is well written and presents an original thesis supported by convincing evidence, say so. A good book review does not have to be negative; it does have to be fair and analytical.(Important Note: when you are writing your review, it is unnecessary to preface statements with I think or in my opinion since readers assume that as a reviewer you are expressing your own opinions. Though there is no one correct way to structure a review, the following is a recommend possible approach:The first part of the historical book review will summarize the work’s contents and describe the authors viewpoint and purpose for writing. The major themes and arguments will be described, any prominent examples noted, and the conclusions recorded; types of evidence used are also mentioned. The level of detail will depend on the length of the review, but some writers can give chapter by chapter synopses. This has several benefits; firstly, complicated arguments can be distilled into very brief, but comprehensive, form, enabling any reader to understand what is being said. Some writers can be extremely wordy and dry, writing in a style wholly unsuited to the everyday reader, and a good reviewer can pass on the required information and save us the struggle. Make sure you identify the author and note his or her credentials. Note any aspects of the authors background that are important for understanding the text.The second half of most historical book reviews casts a critical eye on the contents. The review’s author will use their own knowledge to assess the merits, and flaws, of the text, pointing out inconsistencies or praising inspired ideas. Make sure you note the most important evidence the author presents to support his or her thesis and evaluate the authors use of
Guidelines for Book Reviews(Adapted from Mary Lnn Rampollas A Pocket Guide to Writing in History, 5th edition. Bedford/St. Martins, Boston, 2017.)Book reviews are an important type of historical assignment and a requisite skill of any historian. Book reviews demonstrate your ability to read a text critically and analytically. Students sometimes feel unqualified to complete such an assignment; after all, the author of the text is a professional historian. However, even if you cannot write from the same level of experience and knowledge as the author, you can write an effect review if you understand what the assignment requires.A review or a critique of a text begins with careful, active and critical reading.You should approach the text you are going to critique as an active reader, keeping the authors thesis in mind, noting the evidence he or she uses to support that thesis and noting your reactions and responses to the text as you go. Your review grows out of this active reading.A review or critique is not the same things as a book report, which simply summarizes the content of a book. Nor does a critique merely report your reaction (i.e., this book was boring or I liked this article.) Rather, when writing a review or critique, you not only report on the content of the text and your response to it but also assess its strength and weaknesses. So, for example, it is not enough to say This book is not very good; you need to explain and/or justify your reaction through an analysis of the text. Did you find the book unconvincing because the author did not supply enough evidence to support his or her assertions? Is the logic faulty? Finally, you should note that critical does not mean negative. If a book is well written and presents an original thesis supported by convincing evidence, say so. A good book review does not have to be negative; it does have to be fair and analytical.(Important Note: when you are writing your review, it is unnecessary to preface statements with I think or in my opinion since readers assume that as a reviewer you are expressing your own opinions. Though there is no one correct way to structure a review, the following is a recommend possible approach:The first part of the historical book review will summarize the work’s contents and describe the authors viewpoint and purpose for writing. The major themes and arguments will be described, any prominent examples noted, and the conclusions recorded; types of evidence used are also mentioned. The level of detail will depend on the length of the review, but some writers can give chapter by chapter synopses. This has several benefits; firstly, complicated arguments can be distilled into very brief, but comprehensive, form, enabling any reader to understand what is being said. Some writers can be extremely wordy and dry, writing in a style wholly unsuited to the everyday reader, and a good reviewer can pass on the required information and save us the struggle. Make sure you identify the author and note his or her credentials. Note any aspects of the authors background that are important for understanding the text.The second half of most historical book reviews casts a critical eye on the contents. The review’s author will use their own knowledge to assess the merits, and flaws, of the text, pointing out inconsistencies or praising inspired ideas. Make sure you note the most important evidence the author presents to support his or her thesis and evaluate the authors use of
Book Review Guidelines 2evidence and describe whether he or she deals with counterevidence. Is the argument convincing? Some reviewers can get pretty viscous, which makes for interesting reading (unless you wrote the book). The obvious benefit to the reader is that they can swiftly gain a critical appreciation of the book they may be about to, or already have, read. A good review will point out the flaws, and anything that has been missed, which we might not be aware of. The review will often discuss the heritage of the book’s ideas – are the conclusions new, or is the author following the work of another historian? This will give the reader a sense of depth, and where this book fits in alongside others they may have read.How to structure your book review:Each review should contain three main elements: first, a clear identification of the authors main point, or THESIS; second, the DEVELOPMENT, or the manner in which the author proves the thesis; finally, your CRITIQUE of the work. Begin your review with a bibliographic entry, as in the following examples: Hart, John M. Revolutionary Mexico: The Coming and Process of the Mexican Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Pp. xi, 478.Hynes, Samuel L. The Soldiers’ Tale: Bearing Witness to Modern War. New York: Penguin Books, 1997. Pp. xvi, 318.The THREE MAIN ELEMENTS required for your review:I. THESIS This is a statement of the authors point of view with regard to the subject matter. It may be expressed explicitly or implicitly. It may consist of several theses, bound together in the subject matter. In rare cases there might not be a thesis. In general, the thesis is the unifying element of the book and thus must be clearly identified.II. DEVELOPMENT This is the manner in which the author proves the thesis. Consider the following questions: What does the writer say? How does he/she argue his/her position? Analysis rather than a mere summary of the books content is desirable. Avoid presenting simply a long narration of the story, but do be sure to provide the major points made by the author.Some examples should be given to show how the author proves the thesis. The following questions should be answered in indicating how the author does so:A. What is the nature of the material used? Does the author rely mostly on primary or secondary sources? Briefly identify the type of material used–it’s often helpful to observe the footnotes, and consult the bibliography normally provided at the end of the book.B. How well is the work organized? What is the topical and chronological range of the book? In other words, is this book the complete history of a period, or a thematic account of one particular subject?C. What is the emphasis? What does the writer consider the most important of the material he/she presents? Does the author emphasize economic, political, intellectual, religious, or other elements?
Book Review Guidelines 3III. CRITIQUE This is the most important part of the whole review. It indicates the reviewers ability to evaluate what he/she has read. Criticism is not always adverse. The critique of the work should include the following points, which you will want to integrate into paragraph form–it’s not desirable to create a separate section, or paragraph, for each of these. The points are: A. The authors particular bias or point of view. Is the writer impartial, objective or prejudiced, sympathetic to any social class or group or economic and political practices? Why have they written this book–do they have an ax to grind? For example, a participant in the Russian Revolution of 1917, World War II, or the German Revolution of 1989 who then authored a work on the subject would bring certain opinions, biases, and experiences to their book. As a reviewer, you should be conscious of this–read the preface or introduction, where such information is often located.B. The internal validity of the work–does the author prove the stated thesis to your critical satisfaction? In other words, does he/she provide a sound and convincing argument? Or have certain questions been raised and then not answered? Writers will often identify in the introduction, or the preface, the questions they plan to address in the book–thus read the preface or introduction carefully before you begin the work itself. C. The literary quality of the book. Conclude with a final evaluation of the book or article. In your opinion, is this a well-written book, interesting and enjoyable? Or is it colorless and dull? You might discuss who or what type of audience would find the piece of scholarship useful and why.IV. HELPFUL SUGGESTIONS AS YOU WRITE:A.Obtain assistance if necessary. You may feel uneasy about writing a critique of a book on a topic you know very little about–thats quite natural. So, obtain some assistance before you begin your review by checking what other reviewers have said about the book. Check scholarly book reviews in professional journals such as the American Historical Review, the Latin American Historical Review, the Journal of European History, or any of the dozens of similar such publications available online from the JSTOR resource, at http://www.jstor.org/, or check the numerous print journals in the field of history, located in the Library. Ask the reference librarian if you need help! B. Strike out Grammar Problems. Please proofread, spell check and revise your work before handing it in. Grammar and spelling mistakes will count against you. Your ideas may be of earth shattering profundity but no one will ever know that if your grammar renders them incomprehensible. You might want to listen to some episodes of Grammar Girls podcast for some pointers. http://grammar.qdnow.com/ . Peruse the Episode Archives, halfway down the page on the right-hand side. They are helpfully categorized by common grammar mistakes.C.Write the review in your own words. Plagiarism is stealing and will absolutely not be tolerated. If occasionally you find it necessary to use material from the book you are reviewing, use quotation marks to indicate that it is not your work. Also, should you read or refer to another book review as you prepare to write your own, remember that any material you
Book Review Guidelines 4use from this source must also be cited. Unsure about plagiarism? Always ask before you submit your work. D. Determine the Purpose of the Book.The best place to discover this is usually in the preface, forward, or introduction. What demand did the author intend to fulfill with the book? Did she write because there was no satisfactory work available on the subject? Did she feel that she had a new point of view on a well worn topic? Perhaps she wrote a popular account of a subject about which previous works had been dry and dull. Determine the audience for which the work was intended. Was the work directed mainly at professional historians, at college students or the general public? Ascertaining the author’s purpose is important, for, assuming that the purpose is worthwhile, the writer should be judged by whether she achieved what she set out to accomplish.E. Learn the Author’s Qualifications and Viewpoint.Find out the author’s academic background. Is he a journalist, a professor, a professional writer? Has he written other books on related topics. Viewpoint, however, is generally more important than credentials, since an author must be judged mainly by the quality of the particular work you are examining. A Pulitzer Prize-winner may later write an undistinguished book. But many first books, often derived from the author’s doctoral dissertation, are outstanding. Knowing an author’s point of view, however, may put a reader on guard for certain biases. F. Read the Book critically and analytically. Be sure to identify the author’s thesis-the main argument of the book. Look for secondary theses and other important points.Do not summarize the book point by point. Remember that your intended audience may eventually read the book. They are reading your review to see if they should bother. See how the author uses evidence and examples to support her arguments. Are her sources adequate and convincing? Does she rely mainly on primary–first-hand, documentary sources or on secondary sources? Consider the authors style and presentation. Is the book well organized? Is the prose, lively, direct, and clear? Take notes as you read so that you can return to particularly important passages or especially revealing quotations. Remember that being critical means rational and thoughtful, not necessarily negativeG. Outline the Review . The following outline is only a suggestion; it is not a model that you should necessarily follow for all reviews. You may find it appropriate to add, combine, eliminate, or rearrange some points.Basic Outline for a Book ReviewBibliographic Entry for the piece of scholarshipIntroduction1. Purpose of the Book2. Author’s Qualifications and ViewpointCritical Summary1. Thesis of the Book2. Summary of contents, indicating how the thesis is developed (Use examples. While this will generally be the longest part of the review, you should make sure that your paper does not become a mere summary without analysis).
Book Review Guidelines 5Style and Presentation1. Organization of the Book2. Writing Style (word choice, paragraph structure, wit, readability, length and the like)3. Use of Aids (photographs, charts, tables and the like)Conclusion1. Historical contribution of the book (How does the book fit into the prevailing interpretation of the subject? Does it break new ground? Does it answer a troublesome question? Does it revise older interpretations? Does it merely clarify and simplify the standard point of view? You may need to consult other sources when considering this point. Where does the book fit in the literature on the topic?2. Overall worth of the book (Would you recommend it? For what type of audience would it be best suited? Did the author accomplish her purpose?)H. Do not be Quote Happy.The point of this exercise is to synthesize and coalesce the main points/ideas. If you use quotes, limit them to short snippets (less than 2 lines).V. Nitpicky Details……Make Sure:It must be typed, double-spaced with 1-inch margins on all sides (note that MSWords default margins are different). The font used should be no larger than 12 point.Your review is well written with no spelling errors.Your review fulfills the page requirement by filling up the pages with words, not space.Your review is stapled together before you come to class.Your work is entirely in 3rd person.Your work analyzes what the author tried to accomplish.Your review has one inch margins.Your work has strong topic sentences that explain the purpose of each paragraph. (See me for help on this if you need it).Your work is a critical review of the work and its themes and not a book report. Your work cites those pages where you draw information from.Do not wait until the night before to begin writing. This never goes well. You end up tired and producing substandard work. As well, the temptation to plagiarize increases exponentially in relation to the decreasing amount of time available.There will be no extensions under any circumstances. Late papers will not begraded. This sounds harsh but the deadline is clearly established months in advance. Again, you should not wait until the last minute.
Book Review Guidelines 2evidence and describe whether he or she deals with counterevidence. Is the argument convincing? Some reviewers can get pretty viscous, which makes for interesting reading (unless you wrote the book). The obvious benefit to the reader is that they can swiftly gain a critical appreciation of the book they may be about to, or already have, read. A good review will point out the flaws, and anything that has been missed, which we might not be aware of. The review will often discuss the heritage of the book’s ideas – are the conclusions new, or is the author following the work of another historian? This will give the reader a sense of depth, and where this book fits in alongside others they may have read.How to structure your book review:Each review should contain three main elements: first, a clear identification of the authors main point, or THESIS; second, the DEVELOPMENT, or the manner in which the author proves the thesis; finally, your CRITIQUE of the work. Begin your review with a bibliographic entry, as in the following examples: Hart, John M. Revolutionary Mexico: The Coming and Process of the Mexican Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Pp. xi, 478.Hynes, Samuel L. The Soldiers’ Tale: Bearing Witness to Modern War. New York: Penguin Books, 1997. Pp. xvi, 318.The THREE MAIN ELEMENTS required for your review:I. THESIS This is a statement of the authors point of view with regard to the subject matter. It may be expressed explicitly or implicitly. It may consist of several theses, bound together in the subject matter. In rare cases there might not be a thesis. In general, the thesis is the unifying element of the book and thus must be clearly identified.II. DEVELOPMENT This is the manner in which the author proves the thesis. Consider the following questions: What does the writer say? How does he/she argue his/her position? Analysis rather than a mere summary of the books content is desirable. Avoid presenting simply a long narration of the story, but do be sure to provide the major points made by the author.Some examples should be given to show how the author proves the thesis. The following questions should be answered in indicating how the author does so:A. What is the nature of the material used? Does the author rely mostly on primary or secondary sources? Briefly identify the type of material used–it’s often helpful to observe the footnotes, and consult the bibliography normally provided at the end of the book.B. How well is the work organized? What is the topical and chronological range of the book? In other words, is this book the complete history of a period, or a thematic account of one particular subject?C. What is the emphasis? What does the writer consider the most important of the material he/she presents? Does the author emphasize economic, political, intellectual, religious, or other elements?
Book Review Guidelines 3III. CRITIQUE This is the most important part of the whole review. It indicates the reviewers ability to evaluate what he/she has read. Criticism is not always adverse. The critique of the work should include the following points, which you will want to integrate into paragraph form–it’s not desirable to create a separate section, or paragraph, for each of these. The points are: A. The authors particular bias or point of view. Is the writer impartial, objective or prejudiced, sympathetic to any social class or group or economic and political practices? Why have they written this book–do they have an ax to grind? For example, a participant in the Russian Revolution of 1917, World War II, or the German Revolution of 1989 who then authored a work on the subject would bring certain opinions, biases, and experiences to their book. As a reviewer, you should be conscious of this–read the preface or introduction, where such information is often located.B. The internal validity of the work–does the author prove the stated thesis to your critical satisfaction? In other words, does he/she provide a sound and convincing argument? Or have certain questions been raised and then not answered? Writers will often identify in the introduction, or the preface, the questions they plan to address in the book–thus read the preface or introduction carefully before you begin the work itself. C. The literary quality of the book. Conclude with a final evaluation of the book or article. In your opinion, is this a well-written book, interesting and enjoyable? Or is it colorless and dull? You might discuss who or what type of audience would find the piece of scholarship useful and why.IV. HELPFUL SUGGESTIONS AS YOU WRITE:A.Obtain assistance if necessary. You may feel uneasy about writing a critique of a book on a topic you know very little about–thats quite natural. So, obtain some assistance before you begin your review by checking what other reviewers have said about the book. Check scholarly book reviews in professional journals such as the American Historical Review, the Latin American Historical Review, the Journal of European History, or any of the dozens of similar such publications available online from the JSTOR resource, at http://www.jstor.org/, or check the numerous print journals in the field of history, located in the Library. Ask the reference librarian if you need help! B. Strike out Grammar Problems. Please proofread, spell check and revise your work before handing it in. Grammar and spelling mistakes will count against you. Your ideas may be of earth shattering profundity but no one will ever know that if your grammar renders them incomprehensible. You might want to listen to some episodes of Grammar Girls podcast for some pointers. http://grammar.qdnow.com/ . Peruse the Episode Archives, halfway down the page on the right-hand side. They are helpfully categorized by common grammar mistakes.C.Write the review in your own words. Plagiarism is stealing and will absolutely not be tolerated. If occasionally you find it necessary to use material from the book you are reviewing, use quotation marks to indicate that it is not your work. Also, should you read or refer to another book review as you prepare to write your own, remember that any material you
Book Review Guidelines 4use from this source must also be cited. Unsure about plagiarism? Always ask before you submit your work. D. Determine the Purpose of the Book.The best place to discover this is usually in the preface, forward, or introduction. What demand did the author intend to fulfill with the book? Did she write because there was no satisfactory work available on the subject? Did she feel that she had a new point of view on a well worn topic? Perhaps she wrote a popular account of a subject about which previous works had been dry and dull. Determine the audience for which the work was intended. Was the work directed mainly at professional historians, at college students or the general public? Ascertaining the author’s purpose is important, for, assuming that the purpose is worthwhile, the writer should be judged by whether she achieved what she set out to accomplish.E. Learn the Author’s Qualifications and Viewpoint.Find out the author’s academic background. Is he a journalist, a professor, a professional writer? Has he written other books on related topics. Viewpoint, however, is generally more important than credentials, since an author must be judged mainly by the quality of the particular work you are examining. A Pulitzer Prize-winner may later write an undistinguished book. But many first books, often derived from the author’s doctoral dissertation, are outstanding. Knowing an author’s point of view, however, may put a reader on guard for certain biases. F. Read the Book critically and analytically. Be sure to identify the author’s thesis-the main argument of the book. Look for secondary theses and other important points.Do not summarize the book point by point. Remember that your intended audience may eventually read the book. They are reading your review to see if they should bother. See how the author uses evidence and examples to support her arguments. Are her sources adequate and convincing? Does she rely mainly on primary–first-hand, documentary sources or on secondary sources? Consider the authors style and presentation. Is the book well organized? Is the prose, lively, direct, and clear? Take notes as you read so that you can return to particularly important passages or especially revealing quotations. Remember that being critical means rational and thoughtful, not necessarily negativeG. Outline the Review . The following outline is only a suggestion; it is not a model that you should necessarily follow for all reviews. You may find it appropriate to add, combine, eliminate, or rearrange some points.Basic Outline for a Book ReviewBibliographic Entry for the piece of scholarshipIntroduction1. Purpose of the Book2. Author’s Qualifications and ViewpointCritical Summary1. Thesis of the Book2. Summary of contents, indicating how the thesis is developed (Use examples. While this will generally be the longest part of the review, you should make sure that your paper does not become a mere summary without analysis).
Book Review Guidelines 5Style and Presentation1. Organization of the Book2. Writing Style (word choice, paragraph structure, wit, readability, length and the like)3. Use of Aids (photographs, charts, tables and the like)Conclusion1. Historical contribution of the book (How does the book fit into the prevailing interpretation of the subject? Does it break new ground? Does it answer a troublesome question? Does it revise older interpretations? Does it merely clarify and simplify the standard point of view? You may need to consult other sources when considering this point. Where does the book fit in the literature on the topic?2. Overall worth of the book (Would you recommend it? For what type of audience would it be best suited? Did the author accomplish her purpose?)H. Do not be Quote Happy.The point of this exercise is to synthesize and coalesce the main points/ideas. If you use quotes, limit them to short snippets (less than 2 lines).V. Nitpicky Details……Make Sure:It must be typed, double-spaced with 1-inch margins on all sides (note that MSWords default margins are different). The font used should be no larger than 12 point.Your review is well written with no spelling errors.Your review fulfills the page requirement by filling up the pages with words, not space.Your review is stapled together before you come to class.Your work is entirely in 3rd person.Your work analyzes what the author tried to accomplish.Your review has one inch margins.Your work has strong topic sentences that explain the purpose of each paragraph. (See me for help on this if you need it).Your work is a critical review of the work and its themes and not a book report. Your work cites those pages where you draw information from.Do not wait until the night before to begin writing. This never goes well. You end up tired and producing substandard work. As well, the temptation to plagiarize increases exponentially in relation to the decreasing amount of time available.There will be no extensions under any circumstances. Late papers will not begraded. This sounds harsh but the deadline is clearly established months in advance. Again, you should not wait until the last minute.
Get a plagiarism-free answer to this question
Send us your instructions and we’ll match you with the best writer in your subject.
- 100% human-written, zero AI
- Turnitin report included
- Confidential — we never share your data
- Free revisions & refunds