Writing a Critical Book Review

[_Kishkumen]

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.

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:

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.

[_Kishkumen]

Here's some more excellent advice from the linguistics faculty at University of California Santa Barbara:

Many reviews offer nothing but praise, whether because the reviewer is of like mind with the author or for political reasons. Certainly, as noted above, it is at least a minor risk to issue a criticism of a book in a public forum, especially when you're just beginning your career. However, you should not be afraid to critique a book that has problems (and all books do). Most authors will appreciate the fact that you took your reviewing task seriously, even if they disagree with your critique, and a rare few will even thank you for it. To be effective, criticism should be presented professionally. Sarcasm, insults, and strongly worded attacks should be avoided, as should the wholesale dismissal of an approach that doesn't accord with your own. Always offer support for your position (e.g., quotations or details from the book) and weigh the positive with the negative.

[_Kishkumen]

Louise Edwards, faculty member of the University of Hong Kong, writes in her powerpoint on the subject:

Do not raise matters that are explicitly outside the gamut of the book

Stick to the topic and do not digress onto your pet topic

And, she says, "Avoid...

insulting language
personal attacks
political sloganeering
sleights on institutions
personalised criticism"

Lastly, there is this sage advice:

Always put yourself in the shoes of the book's author. How would you feel if your last decade's work was carelessly trashed?

For those who avow Christian values, the last would presumably be a no-brainer.

[_Kishkumen]

Even humble eHow gets into the act. Amazingly they don't miss the part about the value of civility either:

Remain civil at all times. Sometimes it's tempting to add a flourish of snarky wit to a book review, but it's better to keep your tone professional and your criticism constructive. The scholarly community is a small one, so you don't want to burn any bridges.

[_sock puppet]

Maybe the Mormon god does not agree with academia and the scholarly world, and prefers dripping sarcasm, wholesale dismissals of approaches that vary from the reviewer's, etc.

[_Kishkumen]

Maybe the Mormon god does not agree with academia and the scholarly world, and prefers dripping sarcasm, wholesale dismissals of approaches that vary from the reviewer's, etc.

I doubt that is true. I do think that there is an editorial culture at the FARMS Review that needs to be reconsidered and changed. The sooner, the better.

[_lostindc]

all fine and good guidelines, but I believe the esteemed faculty the OPer cited missed a major portion of the review including personal attacks and heavy implications such as claiming the target is responsible for a mission companion's untimely death.

[_lostindc]

Maybe the Mormon god does not agree with academia and the scholarly world, and prefers dripping sarcasm, wholesale dismissals of approaches that vary from the reviewer's, etc.

When, if ever, has the Mormon God agreed with scholarship? When I was a graduate student conducting research, I remember interacting with BYU faculty on several occasions and concluding that scholarship takes a backseat to egos and preconceived notions. Not uncommon in academia but uncommon in terms of vast scale at BYU.

[_Kishkumen]

all fine and good guidelines, but I believe the esteemed faculty the OPer cited missed a major portion of the review including personal attacks and heavy implications such as claiming the target is responsible for a mission companion's untimely death.

You lost me.

[_lostindc]

all fine and good guidelines, but I believe the esteemed faculty the OPer cited missed a major portion of the review including personal attacks and heavy implications such as claiming the target is responsible for a mission companion's untimely death.

You lost me.

just some Dehlin stuff. We will never see the original text attacking Dehlin but there has been speculation the author targeted Dehlin claimed Dehlin was responsible for the untimely demise of Dehlin's mission companion.