Book Review Instructions

The Basics

There is no specific “set in stone” format for a book review. That said, most reviews follow a similar pattern:

1) State the author’s thesis at the outset. (Why the author wrote the book.)

2) Provide an overview of the book’s content and major themes. (What we learn in the book.)

3) Conclude with an assessment. (Ultimately, what does the book tell us and how well does it do so.)

You should adhere to the 1200-word requirement – your ability to do so is one of the criteria on which your review will be graded.

Reviews should be double-spaced, have one-inch margins and page numbers. At the top of your review, you should supply a complete, properly formatted cite of the book you are reviewing:

Rorabaugh, W.J. Kennedy and the Promise of the Sixties. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Additional Guidelines

Keep in mind the purpose of a book review. You want to provide a clear statement of the book’s central argument; a brief overview of the topics the book covers and the kinds of sources used; an evaluation of the book’s arguments and use of evidence; an assessment of the book’s major strengths and weaknesses; and, finally, an overall statement of the book’s value.

Below are some questions to get you started. Providing thoughtful answers to them will set you on your way to producing a thorough book review that will achieve the purpose of writing a review (and earn you a good grade).  That said, you do not have to provide elaborate answers to each question, and your review should not simply answer all of them in order. Rather, use the questions as a way to get you thinking about what you want to say and how to structure your review.

1. What is the author’s thesis or central argument? What is s/he trying to prove to the reader?

[Imagine, as we discussed in class, asking the author, “Why did you write this book?”]

2. Does the author acknowledge the existence of counterarguments to his or her own? If so, how does s/he make the case that they are not as compelling as his/her argument?

[A way to think about counterarguments is to ask yourself if the author ever mentions how others have treated or wrote about his subject (i.e. the early ‘60s). Why does he think their accounts fall short, miss important points, or don’t accurately provide the entire picture. In thinking about how the author makes his case for his own argument, focus on what ideas he claims are new or original in his account of this period.]

3. What points or themes does the author give particular emphasis?

[Another way to think about this is, “What’s important here? What does the author want me to remember?” You should not provide a chapter-by-chapter summary, but rather give your reader an overview of how the content of the book supports the author’s central arguments.]

4. What kinds of evidence does the author employ to support his arguments? Is the evidence convincing or does the author make assertions that go beyond the evidence? Does he prove his argument is true, or does he simply assert it without adequate support?

5. What kinds of sources does the author rely on for his evidence? Is the book a synthesis of other scholars’ work (and therefore based on secondary sources)? Or, is the book based largely original research in primary sources?

6. What kind of tone has the author employed? Is he even-handed? Sharply critical? Fawning? Are criticisms or praise based on a dispassionate presentation of evidence or is the author trying to appeal to the readers’ emotions? Are the author’s criticisms practical?

7. What is your overall assessment of the book? Does the author make a convincing case, well-supported by evidence, for his thesis? Is the book well written? Is it thoroughly researched? What aspects of the book deserve criticism?