Book Review

DEFINITION AND PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW/REACTION PAPER:

A book review is an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of a book. It is not the simple type of book report often written in high school in which the student simply paraphrases the content. The content of the book is of obvious importance, but liberal arts students need to develop the ability to read books thoughtfully and critically. For this assignment, you are required to provide a 5-6 page scholarly review of a book that you have selected in conjunction with me. Please keep in mind that you must review and react to the book, with the following as a guide.

I.   Analysis of the mechanics of the book.

A. Organization: Identify the kind used (topical, chronological, etc.) and judge its appropriateness. If the organization is confusing or absent, then you may want to criticize the author. In your opinion, would a different organization have improved the readability of the book?

B. Readability: Is the author's writing style smooth, clear, and enjoyable, or is it wordy and awkward? Did the story line progress in a logical and easily understood manner or did it jump from one point to another without any clear direction? You may quote several sentences or passages to illustrate.

C. Supplementary aides: Identify those included (diagrams, equations, bibliography, etc.) and judge their value and pertinence to the book. If there are no supplementary aides, what in your opinion, should the author have included?

II.   Analysis of the content of the book.

A. Thesis and purpose: This is usually indicated in the preface or introduction of the book. After reading the book, do you feel that the author achieved the stated purpose? If not, where did he/she fail? Or, perhaps the author did not do at all what he/she led you to think would be the case. Also, perhaps the author never clarified a thesis or purpose, and if so can be criticized for this failure.

B. Scope: Identify and summarize the subject matter and time period covered by the author. Do you feel that the scope was too narrow or too broad? Or, were you satisfied with the scope?

C. Reliability: Does the author seem to write authoritatively about the subject? In the introduction, or conclusion, or some part of the book, does the author footnote the material, or in some way indicate the sources utilized in researching the book?

D. Content Summary: Briefly and succinctly, summarize the content of the book. This part of the review usually amounts to one-third to one-half of the total review (about 2-3 pages).

E. General value: Did the content of the book contribute significantly to your understanding of the subject? If so, elaborate and explain with three or four examples of the more valuable information you gained. If the book was a disappointment to you, explain why. Indicate questions the author failed to answer, or aspects of the subject which were explained poorly.

III.   Conclusion of the review.

A. Conclude your analysis with a brief summary of your personal "reaction" to the book. What did you learn? Were any of your previously held assumptions changed? Would you recommend this book to your friends? If so, why? If not, why not?

B. Have you read other books or heard of the same general topic before? If so, how does this book compare? Most importantly, how does the view/interpretation of this book differ from that of the others?

These suggestions need not be answered in any specific order, but all of them should be addressed, however briefly, somewhere in the review. Please remember, a book review, like any piece of writing, should observe the basic requirements of literary discourse. There should be an introduction (in this case an overview of your views concerning the book you are reviewing), a middle section in which you develop your argument, and a brief conclusion. As always, clarity and grammatical precision are important if you want your reader to understand what you are writing.

View a book list for book review ideas.

Return to the Math 250 syllabus.

Go to Douglas Anderson's home page.

A.	Organization: Identify the kind used (topical, chronological, etc.) and judge its appropriateness. If the organization is confusing or absent, then you may want to criticize the author. In your opinion, would a different organization have improved the readability of the book?
B.	Readability: Is the author's writing style smooth, clear, and enjoyable, or is it wordy and awkward? Did the story line progress in a logical and easily understood manner or did it jump from one point to another without any clear direction? You may quote several sentences or passages to illustrate.
C.	Supplementary aides: Identify those included (diagrams, equations, bibliography, etc.) and judge their value and pertinence to the book. If there are no supplementary aides, what in your opinion, should the author have included?

A.	Thesis and purpose: This is usually indicated in the preface or introduction of the book. After reading the book, do you feel that the author achieved the stated purpose? If not, where did he/she fail? Or, perhaps the author did not do at all what he/she led you to think would be the case. Also, perhaps the author never clarified a thesis or purpose, and if so can be criticized for this failure.
B.	Scope: Identify and summarize the subject matter and time period covered by the author. Do you feel that the scope was too narrow or too broad? Or, were you satisfied with the scope?
C.	Reliability: Does the author seem to write authoritatively about the subject? In the introduction, or conclusion, or some part of the book, does the author footnote the material, or in some way indicate the sources utilized in researching the book?
D.	Content Summary: Briefly and succinctly, summarize the content of the book. This part of the review usually amounts to one-third to one-half of the total review (about 2-3 pages).
E.	General value: Did the content of the book contribute significantly to your understanding of the subject? If so, elaborate and explain with three or four examples of the more valuable information you gained. If the book was a disappointment to you, explain why. Indicate questions the author failed to answer, or aspects of the subject which were explained poorly.

A.	Conclude your analysis with a brief summary of your personal "reaction" to the book. What did you learn? Were any of your previously held assumptions changed? Would you recommend this book to your friends? If so, why? If not, why not?
B.	Have you read other books or heard of the same general topic before? If so, how does this book compare? Most importantly, how does the view/interpretation of this book differ from that of the others?