How to Write a Book Review High School

What this handout is nigh

This handout will help you lot write a book review, a report or essay that offers a critical 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, event, object, or phenomenon. Reviews can consider books, articles, entire genres or fields of literature, architecture, fine art, fashion, restaurants, policies, exhibitions, performances, and many other forms. This handout will focus on book reviews. For a similar consignment, meet our handout on literature reviews.

In a higher place all, a review makes an argument. The almost important element of a review is that it is a commentary, not simply a summary. It allows yous to enter into dialogue and give-and-take with the work's creator and with other audiences. You can offer agreement or disagreement and place where you find the piece of work exemplary or deficient in its knowledge, judgments, or arrangement. You should clearly state your opinion of the work in question, and that statement volition probably resemble other types of bookish writing, with a thesis argument, supporting trunk paragraphs, and a decision.

Typically, reviews are brief. In newspapers and bookish journals, they rarely exceed chiliad words, although you may encounter lengthier assignments and extended commentaries. In either case, reviews need to be succinct. While they vary in tone, subject, and way, they share some common features:

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

Condign an expert reviewer: three curt examples

Reviewing can be a daunting task. Someone has asked for your opinion about something that you may experience unqualified to evaluate. Who are you to criticize Toni Morrison'south new book if y'all'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 study group—wants to know what you call back virtually a particular work. You may not exist (or experience similar) an expert, merely you need to pretend to be 1 for your particular audition. Nobody expects you to be the intellectual equal of the work's creator, just your conscientious observations tin can provide you with the raw cloth to make reasoned judgments. Tactfully voicing agreement and disagreement, praise and criticism, is a valuable, challenging skill, and like many forms of writing, reviews require you to provide concrete evidence for your assertions.

Consider the post-obit 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 Piece of work in a Irresolute World, 1300-1600, investigates how women used to mash and sell the majority of ale drunk in England. Historically, ale and beer (not milk, vino, or h2o) were important elements of the English language diet. Ale brewing was low-skill and low condition labor that was complimentary to women'southward domestic responsibilities. In the early fifteenth century, brewers began to make ale with hops, and they called this new potable "beer." This technique allowed brewers to produce their beverages at a lower toll and to sell it more easily, although women generally stopped brewing in one case the business became more profitable.

The pupil describes the bailiwick of the book and provides an accurate summary of its contents. Just the reader does not learn some key information expected from a review: the author's statement, the student'due south appraisal of the book and its statement, and whether or not the student would recommend the volume. As a critical assessment, a book review should focus on opinions, not facts and details. Summary should be kept to a minimum, and specific details should serve to illustrate arguments.

At present consider a review of the same book written by a slightly more opinionated student:

Judith Bennett's Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women'southward Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 was a jumbo disappointment. I wanted to know almost the rituals surrounding drinking in medieval England: the songs, the games, the parties. Bennett provided none of that information. I liked how the book showed ale and beer brewing as an economic activeness, but the reader gets lost in the details of prices and wages. I was more than interested in the private lives of the women brewsters. The book was divided into eight long chapters, and I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to read it.

There'southward no shortage of judgments in this review! But the student does not brandish a working knowledge of the book's statement. The reader has a sense of what the student expected of the volume, just no sense of what the author herself set out to bear witness. Although the student gives several reasons for the negative review, those examples do not clearly chronicle to each other as part of an overall evaluation—in other words, in support of a specific thesis. This review is indeed an assessment, simply not a critical ane.

Here is one final review of the same volume:

One of feminism's paradoxes—one that challenges many of its optimistic histories—is how patriarchy remains persistent over time. While Judith Bennett'due south Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women's Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 recognizes medieval women every bit historical actors through their ale brewing, it also shows that female agency 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" shut women out of economical life besides. Her assay of women's wages in ale and beer production proves that a change in women's piece of work does non equate to a change in working women's status. Contemporary feminists and historians alike should read Bennett'south volume and think twice when they crack open their next brewsky.

This student's review avoids the problems of the previous 2 examples. It combines balanced opinion and concrete example, 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 educatee refers to an argument almost feminist history in general that places the book in a specific genre and that reaches out to a full general audience. The case of analyzing wages illustrates an statement, the analysis engages significant intellectual debates, and the reasons for the overall positive review are plainly visible. The review offers criteria, opinions, and back up with which the reader can agree or disagree.

Developing an assessment: before you write

There is no definitive method to writing a review, although some critical thinking about the work at hand is necessary before you really begin writing. Thus, writing a review is a two-step process: developing an statement about the work nether consideration, and making that argument as you write an organized and well-supported draft. Meet our handout on argument.

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

• What is the thesis—or chief argument—of the volume? If the author wanted you to get one thought from the volume, what would it exist? How does it compare or contrast to the globe you know? What has the book accomplished?
• What exactly is the subject or topic of the volume? Does the author cover the discipline fairly? Does the author cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced style? What is the approach to the bailiwick (topical, analytical, chronological, descriptive)?
• How does the author support her statement? What evidence does she employ to prove her point? Practise you detect that bear witness disarming? Why or why non? Does any of the author'southward information (or conclusions) conflict with other books you've read, courses you've taken or just previous assumptions you had of the subject?
• How does the writer construction her argument? What are the parts that make upward the whole? Does the argument brand sense? Does it persuade you? Why or why non?
• How has this book helped you sympathise the subject? Would you recommend the book to your reader?

Across the internal workings of the book, yous may also consider some information about the author and the circumstances of the text's production:

• Who is the writer? Nationality, political persuasion, training, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details most how a work takes shape. Does it thing, for instance, that the biographer was the discipline'southward best friend? What difference would information technology brand if the author participated in the events she writes well-nigh?
• What is the book's genre? Out of what field does it sally? Does it accommodate 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 you are reviewing the first book e'er written on the field of study, it will be important for your readers to know. Keep in listen, though, that naming "firsts"—alongside naming "bests" and "onlys"—can exist a risky business unless you're absolutely sure.

Writing the review

One time yous take made your observations and assessments of the work under review, advisedly survey your notes and attempt to unify your impressions into a statement that will describe the purpose or thesis of your review. Check out our handout on thesis statements. Then, outline the arguments that support your thesis.

Your arguments should develop the thesis in a logical manner. That logic, unlike more standard academic writing, may initially emphasize the author'southward argument while you develop your own in the form of the review. The relative emphasis depends on the nature of the review: if readers may be more interested in the work itself, you may want to brand the work and the writer more prominent; if you want the review to be nigh your perspective and opinions, then you may structure the review to privilege your observations over (but never separate from) those of the piece of work nether review. What follows is just ane of many ways to organize a review.

Introduction

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

• The proper name of the writer and the volume title and the chief theme.
• Relevant details nearly who the author is and where he/she stands in the genre or field of inquiry. You could also link the title to the subject area to show how the title explains the subject thing.
• The context of the book and/or your review. Placing your review in a framework that makes sense to your audience alerts readers to your "take" on the book. Perhaps y'all want to situate a book about the Cuban revolution in the context of Cold War rivalries between the U.s.a. and the Soviet Matrimony. Another reviewer might desire to consider the book in the framework of Latin American social movements. Your choice of context informs your statement.
• The thesis of the book. If y'all are reviewing fiction, this may be difficult since novels, plays, and short stories rarely have explicit arguments. Just identifying the volume'due south particular novelty, bending, or originality allows you to show what specific contribution the piece is trying to make.
• Your thesis about the book.

Summary of content

This should exist brief, as analysis takes priority. In the grade of making your assessment, y'all'll hopefully be backing upward your assertions with concrete evidence from the book, so some summary will be dispersed throughout other parts of the review.

The necessary amount of summary also depends on your audience. Graduate students, beware! If you are writing book reviews for colleagues—to ready for comprehensive exams, for example—y'all may want to devote more attention to summarizing the book's contents. If, on the other hand, your audience has already read the book—such as a course assignment on the aforementioned work—you lot may have more freedom to explore more subtle points and to emphasize your own argument. Run into our handout on summary for more than tips.

Analysis and evaluation of the book

Your analysis and evaluation should be organized into paragraphs that deal with unmarried aspects of your argument. This arrangement can be challenging when your purpose is to consider the book as a whole, but it can help yous differentiate elements of your criticism and pair assertions with evidence more clearly. You lot exercise not necessarily need to work chronologically through the book as you lot discuss it. Given the argument you want to make, you can organize your paragraphs more usefully by themes, methods, or other elements of the book. If you lot find information technology useful to include comparisons to other books, continue them brief so that the volume under review remains in the spotlight. Avert excessive quotation and give a specific folio reference in parentheses when y'all do quote. Remember that you can state many of the author'south points in your ain words.

Conclusion

Sum up or restate your thesis or make the final judgment regarding the volume. You should not innovate new prove for your argument in the determination. You can, however, introduce new ideas that go beyond the book if they extend the logic of your own thesis. This paragraph needs to balance the book'south strengths and weaknesses in order to unify your evaluation. Did the body of your review take three negative paragraphs and one favorable one? What exercise they all add together upwardly to? The Writing Center's handout on conclusions can help y'all brand a final cess.

In review

Finally, a few full general considerations:

• Review the book in front of you, not the volume you wish the author had written. You can and should point out shortcomings or failures, but don't criticize the book for non being something information technology was never intended to exist.
• With any luck, the author of the volume worked hard to find the right words to express her ideas. You should attempt to do the same. Precise language allows you to control the tone of your review.
• Never hesitate to challenge an supposition, arroyo, or argument. Exist sure, however, to cite specific examples to support your assertions advisedly.
• Try to present a balanced argument well-nigh the value of the book for its audience. You're entitled—and sometimes obligated—to phonation stiff agreement or disagreement. Simply keep in heed that a bad book takes as long to write as a skilful one, and every author deserves fair treatment. Harsh judgments are difficult to prove and can give readers the sense that you were unfair in your assessment.
• A dandy identify to larn well-nigh book reviews is to look at examples. The New York Times Dominicus Book Review and The New York Review of Books can show you how professional person writers review books.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout's topic, and nosotros encourage you to do your own inquiry to discover additional publications. Please do non apply this list equally a model for the format of your ain reference listing, every bit it may non match the citation style yous are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial. We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Drewry, John. 1974. Writing Volume Reviews. Boston: Greenwood Press.

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

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

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

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs iv.0 License.
Y'all may reproduce it for non-commercial utilize if you use the unabridged handout and attribute the source: The Writing Eye, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

hoyleexcume.blogspot.com

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

Share this post