Writing a Book Review in History One of the evidences of discriminating reading is the ability to place on paper important points gained from a given work. While there are many ways of writing a book review, each review of a book should contain a discussion of the following elements. 1. What is the nature of the book? Is it a scholarly treatise based on thorough research? If so it is probably designed for specialists. On the other hand, writing for a broader audience probably indicates a less specialized focus, though not necessarily a less valuable contribution to knowledge. Or is it a work that stresses the sensational, relies on gossip, cherry picks evidence, or engages in one-sided arguments? There is a hierarchy of quality based on the success of a work communicating accurate, useful information to targeted audiences. Just as you would feel more assured knowing the surgeon doing your heart transplant will base the operation on an article from the Journal of the American Medical Association rather than from Reader’s Digest, so too you should feel more confident in the assessments of a professional historian as opposed to the compositions of a journalist writing for National Enquirer-style publications. Nonetheless, professionals can make mistakes, engage in sloppy research and writing, or fabricate “unprofessional” one-sided studies whose existence is all the more treacherous because they appear so learned. 2. What is the content of the book? Here you need to indicate the subject matter of the book, such as: an inquiry into the nature of conservatism, a study of Darwinism, or an analysis of the Chinese revolution in 1949. Next establish the author’s thesis. This is a statement of the writer’s point of view with regard to the subject matter under discussion. A thesis may be expressed explicitly or implicitly, but it needs to be extracted and compared to other authors’ theses about the subject. Thus did the Communists come to power in China on account of their opponent’s corruption, due to the Communist revolutionary agenda, or because of their organizational talents? Be aware, these are not mutually exclusive causes but rather more or less important explanations of a particular phenomenon. Most issues historians address have numerous causes, and the historian needs to establish a “hierarchy of causation.” This involves placing the various causes on a priority list which indicates the most to least important reasons which best explain a phenomenon. It also requires the historian to establish the relationships among the various causes. The book’s preface or introduction will likely contain the author’s thesis. After indicating the thesis, the reviewer then needs to outline the manner in which the author attempts to verify the thesis. A mere summary of the book will not suffice. Instead the reviewer needs to evaluate the topics (i.e., chapters) with which the author has chosen to substantiate the thesis, and assess their usefulness. Do the chapters tend to verify the book’s thesis? If so, it what ways? If not, why not? 3. What is the value of the book? This critique or evaluation is probably the most important part of the review. Begin by establishing the author’s credentials, possible biases, or other factors that could have affected the drafting of the book. Then proceed to determine if the book’s title and subtitle correctly reflect the subject matter of the volume. Next judge whether the author has verified the book’s thesis to your satisfaction. What kind of sources did the author use? Do the materials embrace hearsay, personal observations, primary sources such as documents and statistics, secondary sources, and/or interviews? Have primary sources been used, or have nine books been reworked to make a tenth? How well is the book organized? Are generalizations supported by evidence? Are the author’s examples well chosen? How well does the author handle the problems posed? Are sound and convincing cases made for the stands taken? What is the overall literary quality of the work under review? You need to consider the foregoing questions in order to arrive at an acceptable evaluation of the book. In doing so think and write as though you were preparing the review for an educated readership that values your assessments and insights. Do not be intimidated by the author’s prestige and your student status. Comment on the book the way you might appraise a movie or pass judgment on a football game. In doing so, however, be sure that you support your views with reference to specifics. To a certain extent, a book review is also a literary effort. Any review which is illegible or has gross errors in grammar, punctuation, or spelling naturally detracts from your overall work.
