Book Review General Guidelines

A good scholarly book review is a sustained exercise in critical analysis. It does not merely restate the contents of the book, nor does it simply retell the book’s narrative (though it may well do both in some measure). To do these things and nothing else is to write a book report, an exercise best left behind with high school. A book review is aimed at an intelligent and generally well-read audience who is presumed to be unfamiliar with the particular matter imparted by this particular book. A scholarly review of a non-fiction book tells the reader what the book is about while also providing an informed and insightful assessment of the author’s accomplishments within the book, as well as assessing the book’s place within the larger realm of other related work of significance on the subject.

Scholarly reviews are always critical, but that does not mean they are always negative. In fact, a review should never be a sustained trashing of the work in question unless the reviewer is truly offended by the entire work. Critical assessment is seldom negative. Think of what is meant by the phrases “literary criticism,” “critical acclaim,” and “critical praise.” Critical assessment means well-reasoned judgment. Does the book work? Does it work well or poorly, and how well, and why or why not? Does it answer a need, fit a niche, contribute ideas or evidence (or both) of value that have not been said before?

Good scholarly book reviews typically address the following points (not necessarily in this order):

1. Place the book within the larger debate on its subject (with works of history, this is called “historiography”). This can be based on information within the book, but will only really work well if the reviewer also examines other significant materials besides the book under review. These materials usually consist in large part of important works the author relied on (check the notes to learn what these are). They may also consist of important materials the author did not appear to rely on (e.g. significant works dealing with the same or related subject matter that do not appear in the notes but were theoretically available to the author). How does the author use his or her sources? Are they used to good effect or not? If the author appears to overlook important sources, does that reveal a flaw in their research? Can you determine why the author may have overlooked important materials?

2. What are the book’s larger contributions to its subject?

New information?
New argument or angle on existing debate?

3. Assess the author’s assumptions, historiographical and methodological frameworks, psychological baggage, etc. How do these assumptions shape the work?

· What methodologies does the author work from? For example, does the author’s interpretation focus primarily on political, social, cultural, or intellectual angles, or on some mix of these, or on other issues?

· Does the author focus on individual biography to advance his or her thesis, or on the narration of broad historical developments, or on a combination of the two?

· Does the author demonstrate awareness of gender, class, or race issues with relation to the subject? Is there a sustained focus on any of these issues within the work?

· In works of environmental history, you may find it interesting to assess the strength and depth of the author’s use of scientific data and sources, in addition to more traditional historical sources.

4. Perform a critical assessment of the book’s weaknesses as well as strengths:

How clear is the book’s argument (thesis)?
Does the author exhibit a clear understanding of the full problem?
How weak or strong is the logic of argument? Is the argument sustained well throughout the book, or does the author appear to wander within his or her subject?
How weak or strong is the historical narrative? Does it work well? Is it too lengthy or detailed, or insufficiently detailed, or just right?

5. How does the author use specific pieces of evidence to make his or her argument, to gain his or her conclusions?

Can a document only be looked at in the way the author chooses to use it?
Is a body of evidence being ignored? to disadvantage?

6. What does the book suggest the next set of questions should be? (What’s the next step?)