Writing a Critical Book Review
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:32 pm
In the spirit of fairly evaluating what goes on in the FARMS Review, I thought it might be helpful to look at guidelines for writing academic or critical book reviews provided by other, readily available sources so we can all get a better sense of how it should be done. I judge by the standards of my discipline, but there are others. It is possible that we have been unfair in our assessment of these apologetic reviews in some ways. Best to be in the know, I say.
Here are some resources:
Writing a Critical Review provided by the University of New South Wales.
One graduate student offers her view of the etiquette involved in writing reviews:
I thought the following warning from one writer was particularly apropos:
He also offers these helpful pointers:
Here are some resources:
Writing a Critical Review provided by the University of New South Wales.
What is meant by critical?
At university, to be critical does not mean to criticise in a negative manner. Rather it requires you to question the information and opinions in a text and present your evaluation or judgement of the text. To do this well, you should attempt to understand the topic from different perspectives (i.e. read related texts) and in relation to the theories, approaches and frameworks in your course.
Critique
The critique should be a balanced discussion and evaluation of the strengths, weakness and notable features of the text. Remember to base your discussion on specific criteria. Good reviews also include other sources to support your evaluation (remember to reference).
One graduate student offers her view of the etiquette involved in writing reviews:
Anna Saikin wrote:Above all, be respectful to the author, even if you think the book's not that great. The author has worked on it for a long time, and several people (editors, blind readers, colleagues) have looked at the manuscript well before you. Be honest, but kind.
I thought the following warning from one writer was particularly apropos:
The reviewer should not try to write about every error or inadequacy in a book. All books will have some failings and it is the major ones that should be focussed upon. If there are a lot of minor faults, they should be groups in categories and on example of each type presented to the reader as illustration
He also offers these helpful pointers:
Be constructively critical. There can sometimes be a tendency for a reviewer to regard a review as the opportunity to do a ‘hatchet-job’. That tendency should be avoided and the better parts of a book identified with suggestions to the author about how they might be able to improve the ‘next edition’ of the volume.
Be fair to the author. It is not the reviewer’s role to be critical in a negative sense. It is to give the reader a balanced view of the book, its arguments, its strengths and weaknesses.