BOOK REVIEW GUIDELINES Purpose and Nature of a Scholarly Book Review Since no on

BOOK REVIEW GUIDELINES
Purpose and Nature of a Scholarly Book Review
Since no one can begin to keep up with the mass number of monographs produced in today’s market, historians use book reviews to learn about new publications in their field to decide which ones might be useful to read or add to a library’s collection. They provide a quick way to get another scholar’s opinion of the over-all nature and importance of a volume.
Do NOT let review become mere summaries of the contents of the book. Although a summary of the content is a valid portion of any review, the most important section should be the analysis of the volume.
The most difficult, but most important, part of a good review is extracting the author’s opinion about his topic. As you read, be careful to look for this. For example, if you are reading a biography of Henry VIII of England, what does the author think were the successes and failures of his reign? Is his evaluation basically positive or negative? Why? Sometimes authors will explain a thesis or reveal major conclusions in a preface; also look carefully at the concluding chapter for valuable hints as to the author’s key points.
Suggestions for Preparing the Review
1. Read the book. This seems trite, but reading the entire valume is your responsibility. You may consult other reviews of the volume in journals or the internet, but be careful not to copy someone else’s opinions. If you do quote from another source, you must provide a citation giving credit to the source. Failure to do so is PLAGIARISM! This constitutes a violation of my policies, could result in you failing the course, and could result in you being referred for disciplinary action.Your analysis of the book- not someone else’s- is what is important for this assignment.
2. You may use direct quotations from the book (to show the author’s biases, thesis, point pit errors, etc.) but do not let the review become an endless series of quotations. If you quote directly from the book, provide page citations in parenthetical documentation. Example: In his analysis of King John, Hollister concludes that he was “Richard’s opposite—unchivalrous, moody, suspicious, a mediocre general, but highly intelligent and deeply interested in the royal administration.” (p. 172)
3. Components which should generally be part of your review (not necessarily in this order). a) Information about the author- background, major interests, previous works (if any), profession. Don’t add this to the end of your review as an afterthough or use it in the first paragraph. Include only information that is appropriate in relation to the work under consideration (we don’t need to know that Professor Smyth’s wife is named Hilda and that his favorite hobby is gardening.). b) Thesis of the book. What is the author’s major focus/point? c) To what audience does this book seem directed? Is this meant for the general reader interested in history, or is it directed more toward scholars who specialize in this field? (Hint: One way to determine this is to look at the nature of the documentation; if the work is heavily footnoted with a meaty bibliography, then the latter is probably the case; if it has only a sketchy bibliography or few or no footnotes, then the former is likely).d) Provide a brief summary of the contents. What time period is covered? What topics are discussed? How is the work organized (chronological or topical?) e) Nature of the documentation. What are the most common sources the author seems to use? Does he seem to rely on the general works of other authors (secondary sources) or are most of his sources primary (contemporary documents, etc)? Use the book’s footnotes and bibliography to analyze the types of materials the author employs. Sometimes he will also discuss this in the preface. f) Miscellaneous aspects regarding things found in the volume. Are there illustrations? Maps? Genealogical charts? Appendices? g) Particular strengths and weaknesses of the volume in your opinion. How readable? What is its relative value or contribution to the study of history? h) Make sure you review has a thoughtful introduction and conclusion, hopefully tied together with a thesis. Don’t let your review end too abruptly.
General Requirements
1) Have a title page
2) Following the title page, type the following and sign and date it. I will not be able to grade a paper that does not contain this statement:
This is to certify that I have read the volume discussed in the following review and that the language employed in this review is my own work and not copied from another internet or printed source. I realize that a violation of this statement is plagiarism and renders me subject to failing the course and being referred for disciplinary action
______________________________________________
SignatureDate
3) The body of the review should be double spaced with standard one inch margins using a standard 12 pt font.
4) Remember to number your pages.
5) Reviews should be a minimum of four full pages and a maximum of six. Substantial penalties will result for any paper less than four full pages.
6) Papers are due no later than 4:00 p. m. on the assigned due date.
Final Pieces of Advice
1. Common stylistic flaws you should try to avoid: misspelled words/typos, excessive use of passive voice, overly shortly paragraphs (one or two sentences), grammatical errors.
2. Proofread! It is not academically dishonest to have someone else proofread your paper. In fact, it is an excellent idea. Of course, if you are finishing your review at 3:45 p. m., you won’t have much time to proofread! Start early and revise your initial draft, especially looking for things in #1 above.
3. LATE PAPERS WILL AUTOMATICALLY FORFEIT 25 POINTS AND NO REVIEW WILL BE ACCEPTED MORE THAN ONE WEEK AFTER THE DUE DATE.