How to Talk About a Books Strengths in a Review
How to...
Write a book review
Book reviews are a special course of bookish writing. They have well-known structures with familiar components. Hither, James Hartley of the School of Psychology, Keele Academy, Uk, consulted with academics on writing the perfect book review and presents a potential checklist for book reviewers.
On this page
- The four stages of writing a volume review
- Examples of how academics write volume reviews
- What academics look for
- A potential checklist for volume reviewers
- References
The four stages of writing a book review
When writing book reviews colleagues utilize a diversity of phrases that carry hidden meanings. Consider, "This is a surprising book" or "This is a useful book for the library". What these phrases really mean are, "This volume is better than I expected" and "This volume is not worth buying for your personal use".
When nosotros are familiar with the format and the hidden meanings of sentences we know that we are reading a detail text genre – in this case a book review. Essentially nosotros tin always tell we are reading a volume review from the linguistic communication and the structure that it employs. Writers of book reviews typically progress through four stages, equally follows:
1. Introduce the book:
- outline the general topic
- indicate who the volume is for
- place the book in its field.
2. Outline the content of the book:
- give a full general view of its the system
- state the topic of each chapter/department.
three. Highlight parts of the book:
- select particular capacity or themes for evaluation
- critique the argument of the book.
iv. Evaluate the book:
- comment on aspects of the content
- indicate how it meets the readers' needs
- remark on its format, cost, and value for money
- make recommendations for purchase or otherwise.
When we examine book reviews nosotros observe that near, if not all of these components are present, fifty-fifty if they are not always given in the social club listed. Some reviewers, for example, like to kickoff with items from Stage 4 – evaluation – and then move to Stages 1–iii, and finally conclude past justifying their original opening evaluation.
Examples of how academics write book reviews
Example 1
"I usually read completely the books I am reviewing (so as to be certain that I do not misunderstand them), marker parts that I think are particularly meaningful. Then I get-go by saying what the book is virtually and the intended audition (since having this information first may permit readers who are non interested to skip the balance of the review, and readers who are interested to raise their attending). Adjacent I outline how the topic is developed, every bit concerns facets of content and depth of treatment. Then I betoken out what are in my opinion the points of strengths and weaknesses of the volume. Finally, I attempt to requite a global evaluation of my appreciation and possible usefulness of the volume. Finally I smoothen the grade and effort to bring information technology to the required length. This writing phase lasts usually effectually two hours."
Example 2
"I read the book through, marking on information technology possible points for inclusion on
- what the author says the book is about,
- possible central findings, and
- controversial statements.
I so decide on which of these to include and which bits of the book to write about and what to leave out (considering of infinite limitations). I discussion process the kickoff draft, which is commonly too long, and and so I cut it and continually refine it through numerous editings – with periods for incubation between each one – until information technology emerges, in my view, as a highly polished slice of prose!"
What academics wait for
I have reported elsewhere the results that I found when I sent an electronic questionnaire on reading and writing book reviews to groups of academics in the arts, sciences and social sciences (Hartley, 2006).
Approximately fifty people in each group replied. Nigh ii-thirds of these respondents recalled reading a dreadful book review. Some of the things said nigh such reviews were that they were:
- pointless, uninformative, indecisive and boring
- a mere listing of the contents
- pretentious, unkind, careless
- personally calumniating about the author's credentials
- written to cherish the reviewer's ego.
By and large speaking, book reviews were not highly regarded if they simply outlined the content of a book, in a chapter by affiliate format. On the other hand, approximately 55 per cent of the respondents recalled reading an outstanding book review. Here it was idea that such reviews:
- gave a balanced critical evaluation of the text
- made seemingly dull topics interesting
- were well written, succinct, and informative
- displayed crawly scholarship
- made people want to purchase the book.
How then can authors write such "outstanding" book reviews? Respondents to my questionnaire were reluctant to say. Nearly argued that it depended on the volume in question. One, withal, wrote: "I use a basic sort of 'recipe' that touches on all the information that I think readers of book reviews need".
Two stages appear to exist needed here. First of all there is the preliminary reading and thinking nigh the book. Sometimes this is done before putting pen to paper, but some reviewers start making notes from the outset. At this stage then reviewers are concerned with selecting and thinking about information that will be relevant to the four-stage writing procedure outlined in a higher place. Sometimes this will involve a trip to the library or to detail websites to cheque up on the required information.
Side by side comes the bodily writing of the review. Here different writers have different preferences. The quotations given in the above panel provide but two examples.
Whatever the procedures, it is of import that a volume review contains a number of cardinal features. The checklist in section 4 might evidence useful in this respect. In my experience, however, rather than just summarizing a text, improve book reviewers spend more fourth dimension critiquing it.
A potential checklist for book reviewers
Make sure that your review contains:
- An early paragraph saying what the book is about, and putting it in context
- Information near the intended audience
- A critique of the argument/content of the book
- Remarks on the strengths and limitations of the book
- A note on the format, length and price (or value for money)
- A note (if advisable) on how well the text is supported past tables/diagrams/illustrations
- Whatsoever supporting bookish references.
If the following details are not supplied for you, delight make sure that your review contains:
- Accurate details of the authors'/editors' names and initials
- Title of the publication
- Edition
- Date of publication
- Publisher and place of publication
- ISBN number
- Format (hardback, paperback or soft comprehend)
- Number of pages
- Cost.
Endeavour to make your review readable and entertaining. Write it in the get-go person, as though yous are describing the volume in a letter to a close friend.
References
Hartley, J. (2006), "Reading and writing book reviews beyond the disciplines",Journal of the American Club for Informatics and Technology, Vol. 57 No. ix, pp. 1194-1207.
Copies available from the author.
Source: https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/how-to/authoring-editing-reviewing/write-a-book-review
0 Response to "How to Talk About a Books Strengths in a Review"
Post a Comment