Some one just asked me a question which I never thought about much but have always been struggling with: how to write a good book review? So I thought, like all other times when I don't have an answer to something (which is most of the times), let me just take some help from Google. I typed in the following words in the Google Search Box: HOW TO WRITE A GOOD BOOK REVIEW? As always, our dear friend Google didn't disappoint and across the face of my laptop came a dozen of sites trying to provide clues to the most important answer any graduate student who is going to submit his first assignment seeks so passionately. For some time, I felt the same anxiety I had a couple of years ago submitting my first assignments ( hope my teachers have forgiven me for that horrible mess I wrote).
However, as with all things flashy from outside but hollow from inside, when I clicked on those links and spent some of my time reading the stuff, I could make out that unsolicited advice is not always very helpful. To give you an example, the first link I clicked belonged to the Los Angeles Valley College Library. I won't discard completely the points made there. It gives one a methodological grasp of how to go about writing reviews, at least some of the things which one must talk about while reviewing any piece of scholarly work. Where is the author coming from, which school of thought he belongs to, what is the gist of the argument, how the reviewer relates to the arguments being made, what is the method which the author engages in, the quality of writing and prose, the effectiveness which he is able to communicate, the acts of omissions and commissions etc. Overall, I would say that it is a fine way to understand some of the nuances of writing a book review. But the elaborate tree of actions which the article engages in confuses more than what it clarifies. Also, if you have to write something within 700-1000 words, you cannot discuss the whole story. And this I would say is the most important lesson to learn from the Los Angeles Valley College Library webpage.
Identify a few arguments you think are the most important contribution of the book and engage with them wholeheartedly. Explain those arguments, validate them if you think they are right and if you think the author has been totally in the wrong, argue against him bringing whatsoever knowledge you have of the subject to bear on your criticisms. Also, let us accept that there are always some good things and some bad things in every scholarly work and therefore the review should be a balanced one until and unless you happen to confront something written by gods themselves or something which is an absolute piece of trash.
For our purposes, I think the Indiana University, Bloomington webpage might be more helpful. It is crisp, identifies a few but essential ingredients of a book review and is presented in a organised and cogent fashion. Have a look here.
But more importantly, what is the ethics behind writing book reviews? And whenever, you have to really find answers to some of these difficult questions in the academic industry, refer to the Chronicles of Higher Education and there is where I got a few very important articles which might tell us the importance of book reviews in any scholarly tradition. And if you read between the lines, you will also get some clues regarding what constitutes a good book review.
These two articles are by Roger Toore titled Why Bother Writing Book Reviews? and by Lynn Worshom called the Endangered Scholarly Book Review. The question, which both of these authors are trying to answer, is rather straight forward: in this age when thousands of books get published yearly, Journals are reluctant to publish book reviews because no body reads them and academics are reluctant writing them since they are busy writing their own articles and books, why should anyone remain concerned about reviews?
The answer has both a moral and a instrumental logic.
Writing reviews is doing service to one's profession and this is akin to creating public goods which everybody can use without really claiming any great academic benefits (remember a hundred book reviews are not going to get you a job: a single good scholarly article in a reputed journal might). But there is a strong instrumental logic to it as well and especially from the vantage point of young graduate students. Book reviews are windows (or portkeys, if anyone is Harry Potter fan over here) to the more mature world of senior scholars. Where would one get a chance to explain and criticise Waltz, Wendt, Cox and others so early in her career (there are a few like Wendt who wrote the agent-structure piece when he was a graduate student or Colin Elman so to say; but let's just agree that they are a different breed of academic animals)? So guys, wear your thinking cap and just engage with those who have made our life so complicated: it's time to give them back a little of what we bear every single second being a graduate student.
Lynn Worsham's piece also provides clues to writing book reviews somewhere in middle of his article. Just look at those four or five points being made about the style of writing reviews. Of all those points, the most important, as per me, is this:
However, as with all things flashy from outside but hollow from inside, when I clicked on those links and spent some of my time reading the stuff, I could make out that unsolicited advice is not always very helpful. To give you an example, the first link I clicked belonged to the Los Angeles Valley College Library. I won't discard completely the points made there. It gives one a methodological grasp of how to go about writing reviews, at least some of the things which one must talk about while reviewing any piece of scholarly work. Where is the author coming from, which school of thought he belongs to, what is the gist of the argument, how the reviewer relates to the arguments being made, what is the method which the author engages in, the quality of writing and prose, the effectiveness which he is able to communicate, the acts of omissions and commissions etc. Overall, I would say that it is a fine way to understand some of the nuances of writing a book review. But the elaborate tree of actions which the article engages in confuses more than what it clarifies. Also, if you have to write something within 700-1000 words, you cannot discuss the whole story. And this I would say is the most important lesson to learn from the Los Angeles Valley College Library webpage.
Identify a few arguments you think are the most important contribution of the book and engage with them wholeheartedly. Explain those arguments, validate them if you think they are right and if you think the author has been totally in the wrong, argue against him bringing whatsoever knowledge you have of the subject to bear on your criticisms. Also, let us accept that there are always some good things and some bad things in every scholarly work and therefore the review should be a balanced one until and unless you happen to confront something written by gods themselves or something which is an absolute piece of trash.
For our purposes, I think the Indiana University, Bloomington webpage might be more helpful. It is crisp, identifies a few but essential ingredients of a book review and is presented in a organised and cogent fashion. Have a look here.
But more importantly, what is the ethics behind writing book reviews? And whenever, you have to really find answers to some of these difficult questions in the academic industry, refer to the Chronicles of Higher Education and there is where I got a few very important articles which might tell us the importance of book reviews in any scholarly tradition. And if you read between the lines, you will also get some clues regarding what constitutes a good book review.
These two articles are by Roger Toore titled Why Bother Writing Book Reviews? and by Lynn Worshom called the Endangered Scholarly Book Review. The question, which both of these authors are trying to answer, is rather straight forward: in this age when thousands of books get published yearly, Journals are reluctant to publish book reviews because no body reads them and academics are reluctant writing them since they are busy writing their own articles and books, why should anyone remain concerned about reviews?
The answer has both a moral and a instrumental logic.
Writing reviews is doing service to one's profession and this is akin to creating public goods which everybody can use without really claiming any great academic benefits (remember a hundred book reviews are not going to get you a job: a single good scholarly article in a reputed journal might). But there is a strong instrumental logic to it as well and especially from the vantage point of young graduate students. Book reviews are windows (or portkeys, if anyone is Harry Potter fan over here) to the more mature world of senior scholars. Where would one get a chance to explain and criticise Waltz, Wendt, Cox and others so early in her career (there are a few like Wendt who wrote the agent-structure piece when he was a graduate student or Colin Elman so to say; but let's just agree that they are a different breed of academic animals)? So guys, wear your thinking cap and just engage with those who have made our life so complicated: it's time to give them back a little of what we bear every single second being a graduate student.
Lynn Worsham's piece also provides clues to writing book reviews somewhere in middle of his article. Just look at those four or five points being made about the style of writing reviews. Of all those points, the most important, as per me, is this:
- In your review, keep your description of the book relatively short. While a summary of the book is useful to the reader, the most valuable part of your review is your analysis of its content, so move as quickly as possible into your evaluation. Better yet, integrate your description with your evaluation throughout the review.
Enjoy the sleepless nights of academic writing. Let me tell you its fun!
No comments:
Post a Comment