Mr. Lakin & Mr. Forte
(AP) U.S. History
Historical Critical Book Review Assignment
GUIDELINES: WRITING A CRITICAL BOOK REVIEW
The distinction between a book report and a critical book review should be kept
in mind. A book report attempts to do little more than summarize the contents of a
book, while a critical book review is essentially a description of a book or a commentary
on it. It does both more and less than a book report.
The book report is a very simple assignment. It is basically a straightforward
summary of the contents, plots, thesis, or proposition of a particular book. The writer of
a book report is not required to evaluate the author; comment on the style, organization,
or documentation of the book; nor evaluate its utility, potential audience, or “success” to
any significant degree. The book report simply digests or condenses what is in the book.
It does little more than indicate whether the student has read the book and whether or not
he/she understands what has been read.
The book review, on the other hand, is an attempt at a critical analysis of a book.
The most important point to remember about a book review is that it is an evaluation or a
commentary, and not a summary. Unless your teacher specifically requests that you
summarize the book’s contents, a book review should spend little time outlining the
material covered by the author. The bulk of your review should be an evaluation of the
way the author handled the subject and a commentary of the book’s contribution to your
understanding of the issues discussed. Your formal, critical book review should discuss
such things as:
-
THE AUTHOR’S PURPOSE IN WRITING THE BOOK, OR WHAT
THE BOOK WAS DESIGNED TO DO;
Is the book intended as a general survey of a particular historical problem, or is its
purpose the in-depth, detailed analysis of a relatively narrowly defined subject?
Is the author distilling and summarizing accepted conventional wisdom (as found
in monographs, doctoral dissertations, and essay literature) about a subject, or is
he/she attempting to present entirely new material/information and/or
interpretation to the reader?
-
THE AUTHOR’S DOCUMENTATION AND RESEARCH;
On what evidence does the author base his/her work? Here the careful
reader/historian always consults closely in the footnotes… if any… bibliography,
and a Preface or Forward of the book. What sources, primary, secondary, and/or
tertiary does he/she cite as the underpinning for the work? Has the author
published any other books on similar subjects?
-
THE AUTHOR’S ORGANIZATION AND COHERENCE OF THE
BOOK;
Does the author’s organization of material seem clear and logical? Does his/her
narrative and arguments hang together without “gaps or holes” on the one hand,
and tedious repetition on the other?
-
THE AUTHOR’S THESIS, INTERPRETATION, OR “POINT”;
What is the principal point(s) made by the author? i.e. is he/she arguing that
economic problems caused this or that revolution? Is the basic point of the book
that the North won the Civil War because of its greater industrial strength? Is the
author arguing that napoleon was the power-hungry and boundlessly ambitious
because he was very short and in general had an unsatisfactory childhood? What
is the basic point of the book?
-
THE AUTHOR’S CREDENTIALS AND BIAS ON THE SUBJECT;
If possible, try to determine who the author is. Is he/she a professional historian
(possessing a Ph.D. in History), a journalist? a participant in the events about
which he/she writes? Could you innocently pick up a book entitled Sirhan Sirhan:
A Patriotic Life by Leisa Sirhan (his mother) and use it as your basic reference
source for an understanding of Robert Kennedy’s assassin? What reservations
might you mentally make concerning a book about Nazi art written by an eminent
art historian, but one whose parents were executed at the Nazi concentration camp
at Dachau? These are only some of the more obvious demonstrations of the
principles that the perceptive reader/historian attempts to find out something
about the author of any book he/she reads because of the light such information
may shed on the particular prejudices or interests of the author.
-
THE INTENDED AUDIENCE OF THE BOOK;
For whom was the book written? Was it designed as a general survey for the
information of the average reader, perhaps even as an explicitly commercial,
moneymaking venture? Or was the book intended for a narrower, specialist
audience?
-
THE STYLE OR LITERARY MERIT OF THE BOOK;
Although history books are not usually written as literature in the narrow sense of
the term, many historians do argue that history is at least a specialized form of
literature (history as story). All historians agree, however, that anything less than
good literary style is unacceptable in historical prose. In your book review then,
you may want to comment at least briefly on the quality and characteristics of the
writing in the book you have read.
-
YOUR OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE BOOK;
Although you may not be able to comment with confidence about all the
categories listed above, you should feel no hesitation about evaluating the
book from your perspective. That is, what use, interest, or value (or lack of
the same) did the book have for you? Did reading it serve any useful purpose
for you? I would like you to commit yourself as to whether you would
recommend its reading/purchase to anyone else?
Ensure that if you borrow an idea or use an exact quote form the book or
another critical book review that you cite your sources so as to avoid the
implication of plagiarism which is a direct violation of the honor code and
can lead to serious consequences.
You could approach your task in any one of a number of ways. To
convince yourself that this is true, scan either the New York Times or the
Atlanta-Journal Constitution Book Review sections. Read a few of the
shorter reviews to get a feel for the way the reviewer approaches his/her task.
It should become quite clear that there is no exact formula. It should become
quite clear that there is no exact formula. It should also be clear that the
reviewer thinks and writes in accordance with what he/she regards as logical.
Admittedly, he/she is usually an authority in his/her field, and that you are
somewhat of a novice. Nevertheless, do not let yourself be intimidated by this
by this. For this requirement no outside reference sources are required but
may be used.
Finally, certain rules of history endure. The secret to writing remains
rewriting and editing. In particular, it requires what Sinclair Lewis, in answer
to a young person’s question, aptly defined as the secret of success for an
aspiring historian, namely to “make the seat of your pants adhere to the seat of
your chair for long enough.” Also it may be a good idea for another student to
review your work for comment. Make sure you acknowledge any sources of
unique, original, creative notions or concepts. Remember in the final analysis,
the final paper/review/report is the sole responsibility of its author.
All of the above will not be relevant for each and every history book you
may review. For each book, some categories in the above listings will strike
you as more relevant and important than others, but thesea re some of the
major questions you should consider as you comment on a particular history
book through the review process. It is an exacting exercise requiring you to
think very carefully about the work you have read. Writing a good critical
book review requires considerable effort and intelligence on your part. It is an
important test of your critical thinking skills and thus, we think warrants your
best efforts.
Example
Attached as an example is a copy of my critical book review of Michael
Shaara’s The Killer Angels, Ballantine Books, New York. 1975. The review
was published while serving as the Assistant Professor of Nafval Science in
the Spring, 1995 edition of the Quarterdeck, the journal of the University of
Pennsylvania NROTC program.
Assignment
Read the following works:
1. Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American
History Textbook Got Wrong by James W. Loewen, The
New Press, New York, 1995.
2. To America: Personal Reflections of an Historian by
Stephen Ambrose, Simon and Schuster, Inc. New York,
N.Y. 2002.
Using the guidelines described previously, you are to write a comparative critical
book review of at least 6-7 full, double-spaced typed pages. Be advised that its
content, grammar, punctuation and overall professional appearance will be
evaluated and constitute the criteria for your final grade on this, your first project
in (AP) US History.
TIMELINE REUIREMENTS
The first semester’s finished, typed critical book review will be
due no later than Friday December 3rd , 2012.
ABBREVIATED GUIDELINES FOR WRITING A CRITICAL BOOK
REVIEW
1. THE AUTHOR’S PURPOSE IN WRITING THE BOOK:
-Is the author presenting new or merely summarizing old information?
-Is the book an in-depth study of a narrow subject, or is it a broad survey
of a large historical event or time period?
-What was the author’s reason for writing the book?
2. AUTHOR’S DOCUMENTATION AND RESEARCH:
-What evidence does the author base his/her work upon? Look at the
bibliography, footnotes, and preface.
-Are the sources primary, secondary, or tertiary?
3. ORGANIZATION AND COHERENCE OF THE BOOK:
-Is the information presented in a logical manner?
-Is there too much repetition or gap in the information presented?
-Does the author use maps, photos, charts, and/or graphs to help the reader
visualize the events described, and are they appropriately placed?
4. AUTHOR’S THESIS OR POINT:
-What is the main point made by the author? Look for a consistent theme
which is present throughout the book.
5. AUTHOR’S CREDENTIALS OR BIAS ON THE SUBJECT:
-Is the author a participant in the event, a historian, professor, or
professional writer?
-Look for the evidence that the author may be biased toward a particular
viewpoint based upon his/her background
-Has the author published other works on similar or different topics?
-Has the author achieved any awards for his/her work?
6. INTENDED AUDIENCE:
-Is the book for the average reader, or was it written for someone with a
wide background in the subject?
-Is the language appropriate for the intended level of the reader?
7. YOUR OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE BOOK:
-What value did the book have to you? Was it interesting or too difficult
to read?
-Would you recommend this work to read to someone else? Why or why
not?
-Has reading this book changed in any way your thoughts