Information

brown book on white table

The essential components of book reviews

An academic book review begins with the book’s bibliographic information (title, author, publisher, etc.).

Academic book reviews address the book’s value to its field rather than its personal effect on the reader.

So book reviews should do two things

They should:

express the argument of the book being reviewed, and
make the reviewer’s opinion of the book clear

The following activities will

discuss the purpose of book reviews
give advice for planning book reviews
explore methods of writing book reviews

Activity

Read one of the two book reviews here.
- Sample book review A: A-MushettCole.pdf
- Sample book review B: B-Simons.pdf
As you read, answer the following questions:
- What do you think the purpose of this review is?
- How is the book review structured?
Does this review include a summary of the book being reviewed? What purpose does the summary serve?
Write down the examples of strong ‘judging’ language which you find in these reviews. Does this language tell the reader what the reviewer’s opinion is?
Does the review make use of secondary sources?

Compare your answers

5 key features
Feature	Our suggestions
The Purpose of a Book Review	Book reviews are intended to provide information about a book to someone who has never read it and to discuss the book's value to its field. A book review should give enough summary of a book to let a potential reader know whether it might be useful to them in their research. It should also reveal the things about the book which you, the reviewer, found particularly positive and/or negative. You do not have to find a ‘new’ or ‘fresh’ argument when you’re writing a book review. Instead, you’ll be giving your perspective of the book from your unique position as a student researcher. Even if you’re discussing features of the book which other reviewers have already mentioned, your unique perspective means that you will read the book in a different way to anyone else.
Structuring a Book Review	The structure of your book review can depend on the length of your book, its organisation, and your opinions of the book’s value. There are two main ways to structure a review: chronologically and thematically. Chronologically: This method provides an overview of each chapter, showing how each fits into the larger argument or purpose of the book. One benefit of arranging your book review in this way is that you can comment on the strength of each chapter as you go along. It will also give your reader a good understanding of the structure of the book and whether or not that structure is effective. Thematically: This structure is useful for reviewing books with many chapters or for books with sections written by different contributors. If a book does not have one central argument – for example, if it is a collection of essays on one theme – it may not make sense to address each section in your book review. Rather, you could comment on the main points of the book for example: ‘chapters 2, 3, and 5 explore historical approaches, while the remaining chapters focus on the present day’ or on the distinctive purposes of each section for example: ‘Chapter 1 and Chapter 4 discuss the book’s methodology. Chapters 2 and 3 put this methodology into practice’. A thematic structure allows the reviewer to point out particularly strong or weak points in a book, rather than commenting on every chapter.
Summaries	A book review necessarily includes some summary. Unlike with writing an academic essay, when you can assume that your marker is fairly knowledgable about the subject, you should not assume that your reader has much knowledge about the particular book you’ve chosen to review. The way in which the summary is written should display your knowledge of the book and of its larger research field. Choosing what to include in a brief summary of an entire book shows that the reviewer has strong opinions about which parts of the book are most important and useful for the book’s intended audience. Remember: you do not have to include everything in your summary. What you choose to include should be the points that are most important for your specific view of the book, making your review interesting and unique.
Using Strong, 'Judging' Language	Rather than revealing the reviewer’s personal and emotional responses to the book, a review should express the value of the book for its research field and its intended audience. This can be done using strong language which passes judgment on the book. Below are some examples from the two reviews: ‘Pope’s book opposes this division, and not only does it successfully provide a detailed overview of the probable structure of Kushite administration across both Nubian and Egyptian territories, it also successfully uses this overview to challenge the existing impressions of Kushite rule and to suggest an alternative model for that structure, albeit briefly’ (Cole 88). ‘This chapter, however, does contain one of the few problems with Pope’s construction’ (Cole 90). ‘Despite some shortcomings this book provides an excellent contribution to the discussion of the structure and form of Kushite rule’ (Cole 92). ‘The author defends this thesis, alongside several other ideas, in six convincing and insightful essays’ (Simons 66). ‘In chapter six, the author presents a compelling case for understanding the Sumerian Gilgamesh stories as elements of an epic cycle’ (Simons 68). ‘The only weak point in this otherwise excellent book is the fact that it seems not to have been proof-read prior to publication’ (Simons 70). Note that these phrases do not convey the reviewer’s likes or dislikes; rather, they assess the book’s value to its research field.
Secondary Sources	A book review does not usually need to include any outside sources. However, it should be clear that the reviewer has knowledge of the field in which the book is positioned. This knowledge can be made clear in many ways. By positioning the book amongst other books/articles/arguments which you have read or which the book has specifically mentioned By addressing the works/events/debates to which your book might be responding By acknowledging how this book might fill a research gap in the field

Points for reflection

How do book reviews differ from normal academic essays?
Do book reviews include any necessary components which a normal essay does not?
Do book reviews not include any usual components of normal essays?

Throughout this unit, watch the videos to hear Edward Mushett-Cole talk about writing his book review and give some top tips for writing your own.