How to Write a Book Review if You Didnt Read the Book

What this handout is about

This handout will help you write a volume review, a report or essay that offers a critical perspective on a text. Information technology 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 miracle. Reviews tin can consider books, articles, unabridged genres or fields of literature, architecture, art, way, restaurants, policies, exhibitions, performances, and many other forms. This handout volition focus on book reviews. For a similar consignment, see our handout on literature reviews.

To a higher place all, a review makes an argument. The almost of import element of a review is that information technology is a commentary, not merely a summary. Information technology allows y'all to enter into dialogue and give-and-take with the piece of work'south creator and with other audiences. You can offer agreement or disagreement and identify where you find the work exemplary or deficient in its noesis, judgments, or organization. Y'all should clearly state your opinion of the piece of work in question, and that statement will probably resemble other types of academic writing, with a thesis argument, supporting trunk paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Typically, reviews are brief. In newspapers and academic journals, they rarely exceed 1000 words, although y'all may encounter lengthier assignments and extended commentaries. In either case, reviews need to be succinct. While they vary in tone, subject field, and style, they share some mutual features:

• Commencement, a review gives the reader a curtailed summary of the content. This includes a relevant description of the topic as well every bit its overall perspective, argument, or purpose.
• 2nd, and more importantly, a review offers a disquisitional assessment of the content. This involves your reactions to the piece of work under review: what strikes you every bit noteworthy, whether or non information technology was effective or persuasive, and how it enhanced your understanding of the issues at paw.
• Finally, in addition to analyzing the work, a review ofttimes suggests whether or not the audience would capeesh it.

Becoming an expert reviewer: three short examples

Reviewing tin can be a daunting task. Someone has asked for your stance about something that yous may feel unqualified to evaluate. Who are you to criticize Toni Morrison's new volume if you'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 grouping—wants to know what you think about a particular piece of work. Y'all may not be (or experience like) an expert, simply you need to pretend to be one for your particular audience. Nobody expects yous to be the intellectual equal of the work's creator, but your careful observations can provide you with the raw material to make reasoned judgments. Tactfully voicing understanding and disagreement, praise and criticism, is a valuable, challenging skill, and like many forms of writing, reviews crave you to provide concrete evidence for your assertions.

Consider the post-obit brief book review written for a history course on medieval Europe by a pupil who is fascinated with beer:

Judith Bennett'due south Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women'south Piece of work in a Changing Earth, 1300-1600, investigates how women used to brew and sell the majority of ale boozer in England. Historically, ale and beer (not milk, wine, or water) were important elements of the English diet. Ale brewing was low-skill and low status labor that was gratuitous to women's domestic responsibilities. In the early fifteenth century, brewers began to brand ale with hops, and they called this new drink "beer." This technique allowed brewers to produce their beverages at a lower toll and to sell information technology more hands, although women by and large stopped brewing once the business became more than profitable.

The student describes the subject field of the book and provides an accurate summary of its contents. Only the reader does non learn some fundamental information expected from a review: the writer's statement, the pupil'due south appraisal of the book and its argument, and whether or not the pupil would recommend the book. As a critical cess, 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.

Now 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 Globe, 1300-1600 was a colossal disappointment. I wanted to know about 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 economical activeness, only the reader gets lost in the details of prices and wages. I was more than interested in the individual lives of the women brewsters. The volume was divided into viii long chapters, and I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to read information technology.

In that location's no shortage of judgments in this review! Simply the student does not display a working knowledge of the book'southward argument. The reader has a sense of what the student expected of the volume, just no sense of what the author herself set out to prove. Although the student gives several reasons for the negative review, those examples do non clearly relate to each other equally part of an overall evaluation—in other words, in support of a specific thesis. This review is indeed an cess, but not a disquisitional 1.

Here is one terminal review of the aforementioned volume:

Ane of feminism's paradoxes—ane that challenges many of its optimistic histories—is how patriarchy remains persistent over time. While Judith Bennett's Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women's Work in a Changing Globe, 1300-1600 recognizes medieval women as 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" close women out of economical life also. Her analysis of women's wages in ale and beer production proves that a alter in women's work does not equate to a change in working women'south condition. Gimmicky feminists and historians alike should read Bennett's book and retrieve twice when they crack open their adjacent brewsky.

This student's review avoids the problems of the previous 2 examples. It combines balanced opinion and concrete instance, a critical assessment based on an explicitly stated rationale, and a recommendation to a potential audition. The reader gets a sense of what the book'southward author intended to demonstrate. Moreover, the student refers to an argument about feminist history in general that places the volume in a specific genre and that reaches out to a general audition. The example of analyzing wages illustrates an argument, the analysis engages significant intellectual debates, and the reasons for the overall positive review are plainly visible. The review offers criteria, opinions, and support with which the reader can agree or disagree.

Developing an assessment: before yous write

In that location is no definitive method to writing a review, although some critical thinking nearly the work at hand is necessary before you actually begin writing. Thus, writing a review is a 2-pace process: developing an argument nearly the work under consideration, and making that argument as you lot write an organized and well-supported draft. Come across our handout on argument.

What follows is a serial of questions to focus your thinking as yous dig into the piece of work at hand. While the questions specifically consider volume reviews, y'all can easily transpose them to an analysis of performances, exhibitions, and other review subjects. Don't feel obligated to address each of the questions; some will be more relevant than others to the book in question.

• What is the thesis—or master argument—of the book? If the writer wanted you lot to get one idea from the book, what would it be? How does information technology compare or contrast to the world you know? What has the book accomplished?
• What exactly is the bailiwick or topic of the book? Does the author embrace the subject area adequately? Does the writer cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced manner? What is the arroyo to the bailiwick (topical, belittling, chronological, descriptive)?
• How does the author support her argument? What testify does she apply to testify her point? Practice you find that evidence disarming? Why or why not? Does whatever of the author'southward information (or conclusions) disharmonize with other books you've read, courses yous've taken or just previous assumptions you lot had of the subject?
• How does the author structure her statement? What are the parts that make up the whole? Does the argument make sense? Does it persuade y'all? Why or why non?
• How has this volume helped you understand the field of study? Would you recommend the volume to your reader?

Beyond the internal workings of the book, yous may also consider some information about the writer and the circumstances of the text'southward product:

• Who is the author? Nationality, political persuasion, training, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details nigh how a work takes shape. Does it thing, for example, that the biographer was the subject's best friend? What difference would it make if the writer participated in the events she writes almost?
• What is the book's genre? Out of what field does it emerge? Does it conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or literary standard on which to base of operations your evaluations. If you are reviewing the first book always written on the subject, information technology volition be important for your readers to know. Keep in mind, though, that naming "firsts"—alongside naming "bests" and "onlys"—can be a risky business unless you're admittedly certain.

Writing the review

Once you lot have made your observations and assessments of the work under review, carefully survey your notes and endeavour to unify your impressions into a argument 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 style. That logic, dissimilar more than standard bookish writing, may initially emphasize the author'due south argument while y'all develop your own in the course of the review. The relative accent depends on the nature of the review: if readers may be more interested in the piece of work itself, y'all may want to make the work and the author more prominent; if you lot want the review to be about your perspective and opinions, then you may structure the review to privilege your observations over (merely never split up from) those of the piece of work under review. What follows is but one of many ways to organize a review.

Introduction

Since most reviews are brief, many writers brainstorm with a catchy quip or anecdote that succinctly delivers their argument. But you can innovate your review differently depending on the argument and audition. The Writing Center's handout on introductions can help you observe an approach that works. In full general, you lot should include:

• The name of the author and the book title and the main theme.
• Relevant details about who the writer is and where he/she stands in the genre or field of inquiry. You lot could also link the title to the subject to show how the title explains the subject field matter.
• 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 yous want to situate a book about the Cuban revolution in the context of Cold State of war rivalries betwixt the U.s. and the Soviet Union. Another reviewer might want to consider the book in the framework of Latin American social movements. Your choice of context informs your argument.
• The thesis of the book. If you are reviewing fiction, this may be difficult since novels, plays, and short stories rarely have explicit arguments. Simply identifying the book'south particular novelty, angle, or originality allows you to bear witness what specific contribution the slice is trying to make.
• Your thesis almost the book.

Summary of content

This should be cursory, as analysis takes priority. In the form of making your assessment, you'll hopefully be backing upwardly your assertions with concrete bear witness from the book, and 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 fix for comprehensive exams, for example—yous may want to devote more than attention to summarizing the volume'due south contents. If, on the other paw, your audience has already read the book—such as a class assignment on the same piece of work—you lot may accept more than freedom to explore more subtle points and to emphasize your own argument. Run across our handout on summary for more 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 system can be challenging when your purpose is to consider the book as a whole, simply it tin can help you differentiate elements of your criticism and pair assertions with evidence more conspicuously. You do not necessarily need to work chronologically through the book as you talk over it. Given the argument you want to make, yous can organize your paragraphs more usefully by themes, methods, or other elements of the book. If yous find it useful to include comparisons to other books, go on them brief so that the volume under review remains in the spotlight. Avoid excessive quotation and give a specific folio reference in parentheses when you lot do quote. Think that you can country many of the author's points in your own words.

Decision

Sum up or restate your thesis or make the final judgment regarding the book. You lot should not introduce new bear witness for your argument in the decision. You can, however, introduce new ideas that go beyond the book if they extend the logic of your ain thesis. This paragraph needs to residue the book's strengths and weaknesses in social club to unify your evaluation. Did the trunk of your review have three negative paragraphs and one favorable i? What do they all add up to? The Writing Center'southward handout on conclusions tin aid you make a final assessment.

In review

Finally, a few general considerations:

• Review the book in front end of you, not the book you wish the author had written. You lot tin can and should point out shortcomings or failures, simply don't criticize the book for non being something information technology was never intended to be.
• With any luck, the writer of the volume worked hard to find the right words to limited her ideas. You should attempt to practice the aforementioned. Precise language allows yous to control the tone of your review.
• Never hesitate to claiming an supposition, approach, or argument. Exist sure, however, to cite specific examples to support your assertions carefully.
• Try to present a balanced statement near the value of the volume for its audition. Y'all're entitled—and sometimes obligated—to voice strong agreement or disagreement. Just go along in mind that a bad book takes as long to write as a skilful 1, and every author deserves off-white handling. Harsh judgments are difficult to show and tin give readers the sense that you were unfair in your assessment.
• A corking place to larn most book reviews is to wait at examples. The New York Times Sunday Volume Review and The New York Review of Books can prove you how professional writers review books.

Works consulted

Nosotros consulted these works while writing this handout. This is non 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 utilize this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries commendation tutorial. Nosotros revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Drewry, John. 1974. Writing Book 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 Eatables Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License.
You may reproduce it for not-commercial utilize if you apply the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Heart, Academy of North Carolina at Chapel Colina

Make a Souvenir

johnsonforgriettles.blogspot.com

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

Share this post