|
As a reviewer,
you bring together the two strands of accurate, analytical reading and strong,
personal response when you indicate what the book is about and what it might
mean to a reader (by explaining what it meant to you). In other words,
reviewers answer not only the WHAT but the SO WHAT question about a book. Thus,
in writing a review, you combine the skills of describing what is on the page, analyzing how the book tried to
achieve its purpose, and expressing your
own reactions.
READING THE BOOK
As you’re reading
or preparing to write the review, ask yourself these questions:
What are
the author’s viewpoint and purpose?
The viewpoint or
purpose may be implied rather than stated, but often a good place to look for
what the author says about his or her purpose and viewpoint is the introduction
or preface.
What are
the author’s main points?
Again, these will
often be stated in the introduction.
What kind
of evidence does the author use to prove his or her points? Is the evidence
convincing?
Why or why not? Does the author support his or her points adequately?
How does
this book relate to other books on the same topic?
Is the book
unique? Does it add new information? What group of readers, if any, would find
this book most useful?
Does the
author have the necessary expertise to write the book?
What are
the most appropriate criteria by which to judge the book? How successful do you
think the author was in carrying out the overall purposes of the book?
Depending on your
book’s purpose, you should select appropriate criteria by which to judge its
success. Use any criteria your instructor has given you in lecture or on your
assignment sheet. Otherwise, here are some criteria to consider. For example,
if an author says his or her purpose is to argue for a particular solution to a
public problem, such as school reform or international relations, then the
review should judge whether the author has defined the problem, identified
causes, planned points of attack, provided necessary background information and
offered specific solutions. A review should also indicate the author’s
professional expertise.
In other books,
however, authors may argue for their theory about a particular phenomenon.
Reviews of these books should evaluate what kind of theory the book is arguing
for, how much and what kind of evidence the author uses to support his/her
scholarly claims, how valid the evidence seems, how expert the author is, and
how much the book contributes to the knowledge of the field.
WRITING THE BOOK
REVIEW
Although you
should include what you feel is appropriate for explaining your assessment of a
book, reviews generally include the following kinds of information.
Most reviews
start off with a heading
that includes all the bibliographic information about the book. If your
assignment sheet does not indicate which form you should use, you can use the
following:
Title . Author. Place of
publication: publisher, date of publication. Number of pages.
Like most pieces
of writing, the review itself usually begins with an introduction that lets your readers
know what the review will say. The first paragraph usually includes the author
and title again, so your readers don’t have to look up to find the title. You
should also include a very brief overview of the contents of the book, the
purpose or audience for the book, and your reaction and evaluation.
Reviews then
generally move into a section of background
information that helps place the book in context and discusses
criteria for judging the book.
Next, the review
gives a summary of
the main points of the book, quoting and paraphrasing key phrases from the
author.
Finally,
reviewers get to the heart of their writing—their evaluation of the book. In this
section, reviewers discuss a variety of issues:
- how
well the book has achieved its goal,
- what
possibilities are suggested by the book,
- what
the book has left out,
- how
the book compares to others on the subject,
- what
specific points are not convincing, and
- what
personal experiences you’ve had related to the subject.
It is important
to carefully distinguish your views from the author’s, so that you don’t
confuse your reader.
Like other
essays, book reviews usually end with a conclusion which ties together
issues raised in the review and provides a concise comment on the book.
There is, of
course, no set formula, but a general
rule of thumb is that the first one-half to two-thirds of the review should
summarize the author’s main ideas and at least one-third should evaluate the
book. Check with your instructor.
SAMPLE
Below is a review
of Taking Soaps Seriously
by Michael Intintoli written by Ruth Rosen in the Journal of Communication. Note that Rosen begins with a
context for Intintoli’s book, showing how it is different from other books
about soap operas. She finds a strength in the kind of details that his
methodology enables him to see. However, she disagrees with his choice of case
study. All in all, Rosen finds Intintoli’s book most useful for novices, but
not one that advances our ability to critique soap operas very much.
Taking
Soaps Seriously: The World of Guiding Light . Michael Intintoli. New York: Praeger, 1984. 248 pp.
Ever since the U.S. public began listening to radio soaps in the 1930s, cultural critics have explored the
content, form, and popularity of daytime serials. Today, media critics take a
variety of approaches. Some explore audience response and find that, depending
on sex, race, or even nationality, people “decode” the same story in different
ways. Others regard soaps as a kind of subversive form of popular culture that
supports women’s deepest grievances. Still others view the soap as a “text” and
attempt to “deconstruct” it, much as a literary critic dissects a work of
literature. Michael Intintoli’s project is somewhat different. For him, the
soap is a cultural product mediated and created by corporate interests. It is
the production of soaps, then, that is at the center of his Taking Soaps Seriously.
To understand the
creation of soap operas, Intintoli adopted an ethnographic methodology that
required a rather long siege on the set of “Guiding Light.” Like a good
anthropologist, he picked up a great deal about the concerns and problems that
drive the production of a daily soap opera. For the novice there is much to be
learned here. . . .
But the book stops short of where it should ideally begin. In many way, “Guiding
Light” was simply the wrong soap to study. First broadcast in 1937, “Guiding
Light” is the oldest soap opera in the United States, owned and produced by
Procter and Gamble, which sells it to CBS. It is therefore the perfect soap to
study for a history of the changing daytime serial. But that is not Intintoli’s
project. . . .
Taking
Soaps Seriously is a good introduction to the production of the daily soap opera. It
analyzes soap conventions, reveals the hierarchy of soap production, and
describes a slice of the corporate production of mass culture. Regrettably, it
reads like an unrevised dissertation and misses an important opportunity to
probe the changing nature of soap production and the unarticulated ideological
framework in which soaps are created.
POLISHING THE
BOOK REVIEW
After you’ve
completed your review, be sure to proofread it carefully for errors and typos.
Double-check your bibliographic heading—title, author, publisher, and pages—for
accuracy and correct spelling as well.
(Based
on: http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/book_reviews.shtml
)
|