Chicago Style Manual for Critical Book Review TextThe purpose of a critical book review is to demonstrate a solid understanding of the material and to critique the concepts the book contains it is more analytical than a book report, but requires less research than a term paper or critical essay. Refer to the chicago manual of style to format the title page of the review, footnotes, and bibliographic references, and to resolve questions about grammar, style and punctuation. Look over the preface or introduction and table of contents, skim through the book, and read the first and last chapters. Pick two or three possible main points for your paper then carefully read the entire book, taking notes as you go. Decide on whether you agree with the author's conclusions and be able to defend your position. In the first paragraph, summarize the thesis of your review, list and discuss two or three main points, and discuss the purpose of your review. Write down the complete book title, the author's name, and the date of publication to include on the title page after you finish your review. Consult other books or articles written on the same subject with different points of view to give you a balanced picture of the topic. In additional paragraphs, compare the evidence with the counter evidence, summarizing your conclusion in a final paragraph or two. Paraphrase the material in the book, incorporate other references in discussing the topic, and include your ideas. Quotations distinguish your opinion from the point of view of the authors, provide credibility to your review, and avoid plagiarism. On the first page, write the complete title of the book, the author's full name, the publisher's name, the place of publication, the date of publication, and the name of the reviewer your name and the page numbers. Footnotes follow the same format, but only include the specific page or page numbers referenced in each citation. For bibliographic references, invert the author's name starting with the last name first do not include page numbers. Master Thesis KolloquiumAn in text citation includes the author's last name, the date of publication and the page or page numbers. how to write book reviews for michael kucher's classes at uwtyou may choose any book or article on the course bibliography that has not already been assigned as a required class reading. You may select any book or article the notes of most articles and books we read as a class.For the purposes of this assignment, a book will be defined as several chapters in a book usually the introduction, conclusion, and one or two from the middle or a long min 30 pp. If you want to use a book that does not appear in any of the above places, or if you are not sure about the suitability of a book for this assignment, please ask me in advance. If you are writing a research paper for the class, feel free to use a book from your research bibliography for this assignment. Please do not double dip write the same assignment for more than one course without asking both professors what their policies are. I will only allow it under exceptional circumstances, by prior permission. Go to some tips adapted from: mary lynn rampolla, a pocket guide to writing history boston, 1995 , 4 5 the pages in the 2d ed. The writing projects assigned to you in a history course will give you opportunities to learn more about historical issues, events, and people and allow you to contribute your own ideas to the field. This section discusses major types of assignments that you might encounter ranging from summaries, book reviews, annotated bibliographies, and short essays to the meatier and more complicated research paper and suggests some general ways of approaching these assignments. Five Paragraph Essay Guided Writing Worksheeta book review is not the same thing as a book report, which simply summarizes the content of a book. When writing a book review, you not only report on the content of the book but also assess its strengths and weaknesses. Students sometimes feel unqualified to write a book review after all, the author of the book is a professional historian. However, even if you cannot write from the same level of experience and knowledge as the author, you can write an effective review if you understand what the assignment requires. In writing a review you do not just relate whether or not you liked the book you also tell your readers why you liked or disliked it. It is not enough to say, this book is interesting you need to explain why it is interesting. Similarly, it is not enough to report that you disliked a book you must explain your reaction. Did you find the book unconvincing because the author did not supply enough evidence to support his or her assertions? or did you disagree with the book's underlying assumptions? to understand your own reaction to the book, you need to read it carefully and critically. As a critical reader, you are not passive you should ask questions of the book and note reactions as you read. Though there is no correct way to structure a review, the following is one possible approach. One paragraph describe the author's viewpoint and purpose for writing note any aspects of the author's background that are important for understanding the book. One paragraph note the most important evidence the author presents to support his or her thesis. One or two paragraphs evaluate the author's use of evidence, and describe how he or she deals with counter evidence. One paragraph compare this book with other books or articles you have read on the same subject. If a book is well written and presents an original thesis supported by convincing evidence, say so. A good book review does not have to be negative it does have to be fair and analytical. If you still need some ideas, you can look at the following section on book reviews, adapted from: jacques barzun amp henry f. As a sample of what such guidelines may be for writers in any of the shorter forms, here is a set of suggestions about the form of the book review. We will assume that it is written for a learned or literary periodical, where the space allotted will usually not exceed 1,500 words say the american historical review or the new criterion or for an upper division course at uw tacoma, say history of technology. The first of your twelve paragraphs should present an idea of interest to the readers who will leaf through the magazine. They will not be able to distinguish your review from twenty others, and they will be entitled to conclude that you have not expended much thought on enlisting their attention. The opening statement takes the readers from where they presumably stand in point of knowledge and brings them to the book under review. The briefest possible description of its aim, scope, and place in the world therefore follows the baited opening sentence and completes the first paragraph. The second classifies the book: what thesis, tendency, bias does it uphold, suggest, evince? paragraphs 3 to 5 go into the author's main contentions and discuss them. Do not repeat anything you said in the classificatory paragraph, but rather give detailed evidence of the grounds for your classification. Paragraphs 6 and 7 may deal with additional or contrary points to be found in other authors or in your own research but so far, these only amend or qualify what is acceptable in the new book. If you have found errors, mention only the important ones do not waste space on typographical or minor slips. From errors you modulate into the broad field: how is our conception of it changed by the book? what further work is needed to clear up doubtful points? where have gaps been left that must he filled? you have now used up paragraphs 10 and 11 and you have one more in which to strike a balance of merits and faults, ending with some words about the author not yourself or the subject. For with book reviewing goes a moral obligation: you hold the author's fate in your hands as far as one group of readers is concerned. X entirely neglects the foreign implications, when it was he who warned you of this in the preface. Do not expect him to have written the book you have in mind, but the one he had. Recognize the amount of work that has gone into the product and be magnanimous: you may be severe on serious faults of interpretation and inference but unless they are continual, forget the trifling errors in his text just as you concentrate on them in yours. Book reviewers are not infallible. if you ever have any doubts about what tone to adopt in a review of a book you end up hating, consider this sage advice from an unknown editor: write your most critical review as though it would appear the day after the reviewed author's death, without embarrassing you. final points to keep in mind allow ten days for a book to arrive from suzzallo avoid the use of me, i, myself. Include the full title, author's full name, publisher, place, and date of publication on the first page of your review or in a note. Ib Extended Essay Research QuestionsIf you are using a reserve book from the uw library system, please be courteous to other readers by returning your book on time. Also, please be aware that large fines start accruing the minute a book is late and there is nothing i can do about it. Back to michael kucher's courses: technology and the environment at uw tacoma chicago has updated itself enough so i think i can actually toss some of my other reference books! by m. Dissertation on Library Science
© Copyright 2013 - 2016 - www.writehomestudio.com.
All rights reserved. |