Choosing a Work: Sometimes your professor assigns a particular book or article; however, your professor may give you a list of works from which to choose or a broad field that you will have to narrow--first to a specific area and then to a specific work. If you are given a choice, try to find a work that interests you.
Ask someone whose judgment you trust to recommend a work or try to find a work by an authority who is respected in the field. Your textbook may contain a helpful bibliography; Examine the work carefully to see whether the subject and treatment are appealing to you. Check contents, indexes, and introductions; Flip through the text, reading portions in order to determine whether the vocabulary and style are clear and comprehensible to you; If you are not sure the work is appropriate for the assignment, confer with your professor.
Content of the Review or Critique: All reviews should 1 identify the work and the author, 2 include a summary of the work, and 3 include an evaluation. Other elements may be requested or required by your professor; if you are uncertain, ask the professor.
A review or critique may include some or all of the following: An abstract, summary, or synopsis to summarize the essential contents and main ideas. This section is usually more detailed in a review than in a critique or critical review; A statement or thorough discussion of the author's thesis main underlying idea , purpose, and methods of development; A brief biographical sketch of the intellectual life of the author, linking the work under discussion to the author's other works; A discussion of the relationship between the work being reviewed and other works in the field; Your evaluation of the work, clearly presented and well-supported; Selected short quotations from the work that are representative of the theme, tone, and style.
Many of these graphic descriptions are corroborated by eye witness accounts both Japanese and Chinese. Part II describes the ensuing Japanese occupation of the city.
An important aspect of this section is Chang's description of the lengths to which the Japanese government and military went to limit media access to the city in order to prevent news of the massacre from spreading she calls this "Japanese damage control" . This section ends with the liberation of the city and the Allied war crimes tribunals, as a result of which seven high-ranking Japanese officers were condemned to death by hanging, and executed.
Part III describes the efforts of post-war Japan, led by its politicians and historians, to cover up the events at Nanking, efforts Chang strongly condemns. She concludes with the observation that although, at the time of the massacre, it was "front-page news across the world, Chang chooses her three-part structure in order to communicate the diversity of voices that need to be heard in order to fully comprehend the events in Nanking: the victims', the perpetrators', and the historians'.
That history has largely failed at its task to tell the full story is integral to her argument. Thus she likens her three-part structure to that of the Japanese film Rashomon, in which different witnesses of a rape recount its story, each from their own perspective including the victim's, the rapist's, and that of an eyewitness.
The accounts, of course, vary considerably: "It is for the reader to pull all the recollections together, to credit or discredit parts or all of each account, and through this process to create out of subjective and often self-serving perceptions a more objective picture of what might have occurred.
This [film] should be included in the curriculum of any course treating criminal justice. Its point goes to the heart of history" The book cites eye witness accounts on all sides, including Western eye witnesses: much mileage is generated by the memoirs of American missionaries who were on the scene at the time of the massacre.
The book also provides a map of the city, marking specific locations of individual massacres, and twenty-four pages of photographs. Without a doubt, the graphic verbal accounts of those who witnessed the event are most effective: they are searing and hard to forget.
What are they known for? What particular sorts of qualifications and expertise do they bring to the subject? How might the work you are reviewing fit into a wider research or career trajectory? Summary of contents. A reasonably thorough indication of the research methods used if applicable and of the range of substantive material covered in the book should be included.
Identify one particular area in which you think the book does well. This should, ideally, be its single greatest strength as an academic work. Identify one particular area in which you think the book could be improved. While this weakness might be related to something you actually believe to be incorrect, it is more likely to be something that the author omitted, or neglected to address in sufficient detail.
End your review with a concluding statement summarizing your opinion of the book. The transition to upper level writing across the disciplines can be traumatic for the unprepared. Many of us had never written a critical book review for history, and not all of us were history majors. A number of students dropped out of the course after writing their first critical book review in history simply because they did not know what was required and did not conduct the research to find out.
The critical book review in history is unique to the discipline and a skill that is expected to be mastered by history students after their first year. Purpose The purpose of the critical book review for history is to share information about an historical topic - it is not a book report that summarizes the content.
Historiography is the history of writing on a particular topic. The historical source under review is usually secondary, that is, it is about an event in history that the author has contributed some new information.
The review is critical in that it discusses and evaluates the significance of this new information. Book reviews also provide the historian with a thumbnail sketch of the contents - that may be very useful in research work. Writing a book review requires that you assess the books strengths and weaknesses as they pertain to historiography - it is not a literary review.
You should also tell the reader why you liked or disliked the book. History students are expected to learn the discipline: to become historians. In order to review a book on history it is essential to have some information on the subject, the region, and the period. The bibliography in the book should supply you with references to sources with related information. Journals are also a good place to find this information and to look for scholarly book reviews that will also help you understand the form, and give you an idea of what your review should look like.
The appendices conclude with a listing of aviation firsts and space flights, as well as a copy of the Wright U. The book cites eye witness accounts on all sides, including Western eye witnesses: much mileage is generated by the memoirs of American missionaries who were on the scene at the time of the massacre. But keep in mind that a bad book takes as long to write as a good one, and every author deserves fair treatment. A reasonably thorough indication of the research methods used if applicable and of the range of substantive material covered in the book should be included. The construction of the book meshes well with its organization and lends itself successfully to the study of different time periods in history. Original Title Your title is not the same as the title of the work under discussion but may include the work's title.
Nor do you need to know as much about the subject as the author because you hardly ever will. The reader has a sense of what the student expected of the book, but no sense of what the author herself set out to prove. The bibliography in the book should supply you with references to sources with related information. Biographical information about the credibility, and expertise of the author must be taken into consideration.
Is the thesis of the book well supported? Obviously, you are more likely to be targeted for this if you already have an established reputation in your field of expertise, and some journals will only publish reviews which have been proactively commissioned. Precise language allows you to control the tone of your review.
The book review is an opportunity to give your true opinion about a book. A combination?
It is not always easy to discern the main argument but this is the most important part of your book review. Perhaps you want to situate a book about the Cuban revolution in the context of Cold War rivalries between the United States and the Soviet Union. In a review, make a recommendation about the type of reader likely to enjoy or benefit from the work. Identify one particular area in which you think the book does well.
The book is divided into three parts, each subdivided into several chapters. The answers to these questions should set up the body of your thesis. Include your thesis statement-your main argument which is the focus of the review. A sample book review What is a book review? Careful, critical reading is essential.
Explain if the book progresses chronologically or if it addresses events by topic. Would you recommend the book to your reader? The author, Anne Marie Millbrooke, is a proven historian and author specializing in science and technology with an emphasis on aviation history. Occasionally, one will pronounce the Truth through the medium of poetry and the arts. The tlamatinime, or wise men, first studied the codices and legends and attempted to interpret them.
Like many of my peers, I was a third-year student in a fourth-year class expected to write at the fourth-year level. The accounts, of course, vary considerably: "It is for the reader to pull all the recollections together, to credit or discredit parts or all of each account, and through this process to create out of subjective and often self-serving perceptions a more objective picture of what might have occurred.
What evidence does she use to prove her point? This may be difficult if the author has merely implied rather than explicitly explained his or her thesis. If so, how does this philosophy affect the presentation of the argument? I liked how the book showed ale and beer brewing as an economic activity, but the reader gets lost in the details of prices and wages. Your choice of context informs your argument.