Academic Journal How to Become a Book Reviewer
How to...
Write a book review
Book reviews are a special form of academic writing. They have well-known structures with familiar components. Hither, James Hartley of the School of Psychology, Keele Academy, UK, consulted with academics on writing the perfect book review and presents a potential checklist for book reviewers.
On this folio
- The iv stages of writing a book review
- Examples of how academics write book reviews
- What academics look for
- A potential checklist for book reviewers
- References
The iv stages of writing a volume review
When writing book reviews colleagues utilise a variety of phrases that carry hidden meanings. Consider, "This is a surprising volume" or "This is a useful book for the library". What these phrases actually mean are, "This volume is better than I expected" and "This book is not worth ownership for your personal use".
When we are familiar with the format and the hidden meanings of sentences we know that we are reading a particular text genre – in this case a book review. Essentially nosotros can always tell we are reading a book review from the language and the structure that information technology employs. Writers of book reviews typically progress through four stages, as follows:
1. Introduce the book:
- outline the general topic
- indicate who the book is for
- place the volume in its field.
2. Outline the content of the book:
- requite a general view of its the organization
- state the topic of each chapter/section.
3. Highlight parts of the volume:
- select particular chapters or themes for evaluation
- critique the argument of the volume.
4. Evaluate the volume:
- annotate on aspects of the content
- indicate how it meets the readers' needs
- remark on its format, price, and value for money
- make recommendations for purchase or otherwise.
When we examine book reviews we observe that almost, if not all of these components are present, fifty-fifty if they are not always given in the social club listed. Some reviewers, for example, similar to starting time with items from Stage iv – evaluation – so motion to Stages 1–3, and finally conclude past justifying their original opening evaluation.
Examples of how academics write volume reviews
Example 1
"I usually read completely the books I am reviewing (and then as to exist certain that I do not misunderstand them), marking parts that I call back are particularly meaningful. Then I get-go by saying what the book is about and the intended audition (since having this information first may permit readers who are not interested to skip the residue of the review, and readers who are interested to raise their attending). Adjacent I outline how the topic is developed, as concerns facets of content and depth of handling. Then I signal out what are in my opinion the points of strengths and weaknesses of the book. Finally, I try to give a global evaluation of my appreciation and possible usefulness of the book. Finally I polish the form and endeavor to bring it to the required length. This writing stage lasts unremarkably around ii hours."
Instance two
"I read the volume through, marking on it possible points for inclusion on
- what the author says the volume is virtually,
- possible fundamental findings, and
- controversial statements.
I then decide on which of these to include and which $.25 of the book to write about and what to get out out (because of space limitations). I discussion process the commencement typhoon, which is usually too long, and then I cutting it and continually refine information technology through numerous editings – with periods for incubation betwixt each one – until it emerges, in my view, as a highly polished piece of prose!"
What academics expect for
I have reported elsewhere the results that I plant when I sent an electronic questionnaire on reading and writing book reviews to groups of academics in the arts, sciences and social sciences (Hartley, 2006).
Approximately l people in each group replied. Most two-thirds of these respondents recalled reading a dreadful book review. Some of the things said near such reviews were that they were:
- pointless, uninformative, indecisive and tedious
- a mere listing of the contents
- pretentious, unkind, careless
- personally abusive about the author's credentials
- written to cherish the reviewer's ego.
Generally speaking, book reviews were not highly regarded if they simply outlined the content of a book, in a chapter by chapter format. On the other hand, approximately 55 per cent of the respondents recalled reading an outstanding book review. Here information technology was thought that such reviews:
- gave a balanced disquisitional evaluation of the text
- fabricated seemingly dull topics interesting
- were well written, succinct, and informative
- displayed awesome scholarship
- fabricated people desire to buy the book.
How then tin can authors write such "outstanding" book reviews? Respondents to my questionnaire were reluctant to say. Most argued that it depended on the book in question. One, even so, wrote: "I use a basic sort of 'recipe' that touches on all the information that I recall readers of book reviews need".
Two stages appear to be needed hither. Starting time of all there is the preliminary reading and thinking virtually the book. Sometimes this is washed earlier putting pen to paper, simply some reviewers start making notes from the outset. At this phase then reviewers are concerned with selecting and thinking about information that volition be relevant to the 4-stage writing process outlined in a higher place. Sometimes this will involve a trip to the library or to particular websites to check up on the required information.
Next comes the actual writing of the review. Here different writers take different preferences. The quotations given in the above panel provide simply two examples.
Whatever the procedures, information technology is important that a volume review contains a number of fundamental features. The checklist in section 4 might prove useful in this respect. In my experience, however, rather than just summarizing a text, better volume reviewers spend more time critiquing it.
A potential checklist for book reviewers
Make sure that your review contains:
- An early paragraph saying what the book is about, and putting it in context
- Information virtually the intended audience
- A critique of the argument/content of the book
- Remarks on the strengths and limitations of the book
- A notation on the format, length and price (or value for money)
- A note (if advisable) on how well the text is supported by tables/diagrams/illustrations
- Any supporting academic references.
If the following details are not supplied for you lot, delight brand sure that your review contains:
- Accurate details of the authors'/editors' names and initials
- Title of the publication
- Edition
- Date of publication
- Publisher and identify of publication
- ISBN number
- Format (hardback, paperback or soft cover)
- Number of pages
- Cost.
Endeavour to make your review readable and entertaining. Write it in the first person, as though yous are describing the volume in a letter to a close friend.
References
Hartley, J. (2006), "Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines",Journal of the American Gild for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 1194-1207.
Copies bachelor from the author.
Source: https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/how-to/authoring-editing-reviewing/write-a-book-review
0 Response to "Academic Journal How to Become a Book Reviewer"
Post a Comment