Rationale: This analytical book review will critically examine an important scholarly book covering some aspect of United States History pre 1877 (Hist.1301)/After 1877 (Hist. 1302).
The purpose of this review is twofold: first, to acquaint the student with a classic volume of historical scholarship and second, to allow the student to think critically about an important facet of American history and then to organize your thoughts in clear, cogent prose. You should not view this simply as a hurdle which you must overcome in order to earn a grade of “A” or “B” or “C†in this course, but rather approach it as an opportunity to expand your creativity in thinking and writing, two very important aspects of any individual’s necessary life skills. Therefore, be advised that I consider this a VERY important aspect of this course and your reviews will be read and graded VERY carefully.
Form: Each book review will be at least 4 (complete) pages long. The main objective of this analytical book review should be to comprehensively cover the three sections of the following book review outline:
Part I: This is a VERY brief outline of the contents of the book. In the space of one paragraph you should be able to convey the parameters of the book’s contents. DO NOT simply reproduce the book’s table of contents or re-hash the book. This is where 90% of book reviews fail. Do not “over†quote books you should summarize or get to the meaning behind the words. I would prefer few or no quotes from the book. It is not a summary or a description of the book. It is not a book report. In fact, most book reviews describe very little of a book’s content. It is analytical in that it is a thoughtful discussion of the work, its benefits and shortcomings, and its significance. A review evaluates the author’s thesis, arguments, evidence, and, perhaps, writing style. It also comments on how the book fits in with other works written on this topic. In short, an analytical book review is one that employs “analytical thinking.”
Part II: Here is the place for a careful summary of the author’s thesis.  The thesis is the primary idea the author is trying to prove and convince the reader to accept. You must first identify the thesis and then show how the author either substantiates or fails to substantiate this thesis. This will undoubtedly take you two pages to do a good job. Once again I would discourage you from using examples from the book. Tell me what the author is telling the reader not simply pull examples from the book and summarize them. The book’s author has several hundred pages to make his or her point, but you will have only a few pages to explain your analysis. You will have to reorganize what the author has said into your own review and present your analysis according to the topics which you think are important.
Part III: Here is where you describe your reaction to the book (very important). Some of the questions you must answer include: Do you agree or disagree with the book’s conclusions? Why? Did the book support or contradict what you read in your textbook on the same subject? (You MUST quote some of the relevant passages from both books.) Also I know that some books you read may not have any information in the textbook if this is the case you may skip this question. Did you detect any biases on the part of the author? What was the author’s background and why did he or she write the book? How in your opinion could the book have been improved? You must be specific and keep in mind there are NO perfect books. Did you enjoy reading the book? Why or why not? Would you recommend it to others?
Book Reviews: Questions to Consider
What are the author’s stated goals and achievements?
1. Does the author intend to write about one thing, but ends up writing about something else?
2. In order to achieve the goal, should the author logically include certain topics? Does the author miss topics which should have been included?
3. Does the author follow his or her goals throughout the book?
What is the author’s frame of reference?
1. What is the author’s personal background? Does the author project his or her perspective into the book’s organization, argument, or overall interpretation?
2. What was the climate of opinion at the time the book was written? Could the author have written the same book ten years earlier or ten years later? Why?
3. Does the author have any specific biases or interests that affect his or her work?
What is the author’s writing style and how does it fit with his or her goals?
1. Does the author’s writing style add or detract from the book’s main argument? Why?
2. Is he or she clear?
3. Does the author have a certain viewpoint, voice, or organization, and is it explicit, obvious, or appropriate?
What is the author’s agenda?
1. What are the author’s moral or political judgments and how do they fit into the book?
2. For what political, moral, intellectual, or other purpose does the author argue and shape the material? How does the author connect these to the book’s contents?
3. Does the author discuss these forces openly or merely imply their importance? Does the author deny that some of these forces are important?
What does the author presume about the social, economic, or political arrangements in the society being studied?
1. How are social, economic, or political groups divided, explained, or interrelated?
2. How many groups are there and what is the nature of these groups?
3. What does the author explicitly or implicitly argue about the relations of these groups?
4. Is one or more of these groups perceived to be better, stronger, more important than the others or are they equal?
How does the author use evidence to prove the argument?
1. What kind of evidence does the author use in the book?
2. With what types of sources is the book constructed?
3. Is the evidence compelling? Is there enough evidence?
4. Does the author rely on assumptions or evidence to prove arguments?
5. What methods does the author use and are they properly used?
6. Does the author have weak evidence to prove a strong thesis or the reverse?
7. Is there missing evidence or should the author have consulted other sources to present a more balanced account?
How does the author tell his story?
1. From whose viewpoint does the author tell the story or make the argument?
2. What “plot” does the author adopt?
3. Do all events move towards a “better tomorrow” (progress), or a worse one (decline)? Or does history repeat itself?
4. When does the story begin and end? Why? What divisions of time does the author use? Why does he “periodize” his topic as he does?
5. Who are the “actors” in the story and how are they viewed – as heroes, villains, tragic figures?
6. Does the author perceive his or her story to be part of a larger interpretation?
What does the author assume about human behavior?
1. Does the author assume that people change or that they never do?
2. Can people change easily or with extreme difficulty?
3. Do people change themselves, or does the “environment” change them?
4. Are all people basically alike in their interests, outlooks, and capacities?
5. Do human drives vary by individual, culture, class, or time?
6. Is human nature universal or culturally or temporally specific?
What is the authors’ contribution to existing scholarship?
1. How does the book contribute to our understanding of the period or topic?
2. What does the author add to existing scholarship?