This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Tone: a "critical review" does not excuse a "trash and burn" approach to another scholar's work. Take as even-handed an approach as possible, noting both the strong and weak points of the investigation.Â Do not "pull punches"; if there are factual or methodological errors, you must take notice of them. However, remember that every study makes some contribution to the field, no matter how small.Â Someone wise once said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Organize your remarks into three basic categories:
Note: These three sections should receive approximately 1:3:2 proportional weight (and space) in your critique.
Provide a synopsis of the main features of the work
What is the author's key idea or "thesis" (i.e., what the author wants you to believe and/or do as a result of reading this article or book)?
How is the analysis structured?
What key terms are used, and what do they mean?
Sketch the main supporting arguments of the work. In the process, highlight 3-5 "quotable quotes" to help other people remember the author's key points.
What does the author say to convince you that the thesis should be accepted?
What kinds of evidence is adduced in favor of the thesis? E.g.,
What images, illustrations, Scripture passages and/or other data are cited?
What previous studies does the author cite? Remember to note both the ones contested or refuted as well as those affirmed or used constructively.
How is this evidence interpreted-both in terms of content and method? E.g.,
How are the Scripture passages, etc., used by the author?
How are the earlier studies worked into the author's argument?
Finally, evaluate what you see as the positive contribution of this study for understanding the method or topic under discussion, and point out what you see as its limitations-or even errors of fact or of method.
What are the most interesting arguments raised or illustrations used?
Which do you think are the most important for our studies?
Which remain unclear to you?
How reliable are the earlier studies on which the author bases the argument? Do you find the author's use of them compelling?
When you compare the Scripture passages cited in the article/chapter/book with the way they are interpreted by the author, what kinds of differences do you see between your reading and the author's interpretation? Are these differences of method or content or both?
What do you see as the three most important contributions of this article/chapter/book to understanding the topic?
What do you see as its limitations-or even errors of fact or of method?
What are 2-3 questions that you would find helpful for class discussion of this investigation?
Execution & submission of the assignment:
The complete and accurate Chicago Manual of Style version bibliographic reference (including author, title, publication information, and page references) should be listed at the top of the first page of the review, followed by the reviewer's name and the date the review was written.
The document should be submitted in print to the instructor along with a copy of the article/chapter being reviewed (or an active link to the digital version).
Copies of the review should be posted to the Blackboard, emailed, or otherwise distributed to seminar members by at least the weekend before the class presentation. In addition to the bibliographic information for the article or book, include on the review any pertinent references to the Bible or other seminar texts so your colleagues can prepare the passage(s) ahead of time. If there is a digital text of the work you are reviewing, it is handy to include the link in the review itself so that interested parties can access the study.
You will be allotted 5-7 minutes for your class presentation of one of your critical reviews. (Any other reviews simply will be submitted to the instructor.) Strict time limits will be observed; please practice the delivery so you know you will stay within the allotted time.
When you are asked to write a critical review of a book or article, you will need to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. In other words, you will be examining another person's thoughts on a topic from your point of view.
Your stand must go beyond your "gut reaction" to the work and be based on your knowledge (readings, lecture, experience) of the topic as well as on factors such as criteria stated in your assignment or discussed by you and your instructor.
Make your stand clear at the beginning of your review, in your evaluations of specific parts, and in your concluding commentary.
Remember that your goal should be to make a few key points about the book or article, not to discuss everything the author writes.
Understanding the Assignment
To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work--deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole.
Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain points and prevent you from merely summarizing what the author says. Assuming the role of an analytical reader will also help you to determine whether or not the author fulfills the stated purpose of the book or article and enhances your understanding or knowledge of a particular topic.
Be sure to read your assignment thoroughly before you read the article or book. Your instructor may have included specific guidelines for you to follow. Keeping these guidelines in mind as you read the article or book can really help you write your paper!
Also note where the work connects with what you've studied in the course. You can make the most efficient use of your reading and notetaking time if you are an active reader; that is, keep relevant questions in mind and jot down page numbers as well as your responses to ideas that appear to be significant as you read.
Please note: The length of your introduction and overview, the number of points you choose to review, and the length of your conclusion should be proportionate to the page limit stated in your assignment and should reflect the complexity of the material being reviewed as well as the expectations of your reader.
Write the introduction
Below are a few guidelines to help you write the introduction to your critical review.
Introduce your review appropriately
Begin your review with an introduction appropriate to your assignment.
If your assignment asks you to review only one book and not to use outside sources, your introduction will focus on identifying the author, the title, the main topic or issue presented in the book, and the author's purpose in writing the book.
If your assignment asks you to review the book as it relates to issues or themes discussed in the course, or to review two or more books on the same topic, your introduction must also encompass those expectations.Â
For example, before you can review two books on a topic, you must explain to your reader in your introduction how they are related to one another.
Within this shared context (or under this "umbrella") you can then review comparable aspects of both books, pointing out where the authors agree and differ.
In other words, the more complicated your assignment is, the more your introduction must accomplish.
Finally, the introduction to a book review is always the place for you to establish your position as the reviewer (your thesis about the author's thesis).
As you write, consider the following questions:
Is the book a memoir, a treatise, a collection of facts, an extended argument, etc.? Is the article a documentary, a write-up of primary research, a position paper, etc.?
Who is the author? What does the preface or foreword tell you about the author's purpose, background, and credentials? What is the author's approach to the topic (as a journalist? a historian? a researcher?)?
What is the main topic or problem addressed? How does the work relate to a discipline, to a profession, to a particular audience, or to other works on the topic?
What is your critical evaluation of the work (your thesis)? Why have you taken that position? What criteria are you basing your position on? Â
Provide an overview
In your introduction you will also want to provide an overview. An overview supplies your reader with certain general information not appropriate for including in the introduction but necessary to understanding the body of the review.
Generally, an overview describes your book's division into chapters, sections, or points of discussion. An overview may also include background information about the topic, about your stand, or about the criteria you will use for evaluation.
The overview and the introduction work together to provide a comprehensive beginning for (a "springboard" into) your review.
As you write, consider the following questions:
What are the author's basic premises? What issues are raised, or what themes emerge? What situation (i.e., racism on college campuses) provides a basis for the author's assertions?
How informed is my reader? What background information is relevant to the entire book and should be placed here rather than in a body paragraph?
Write the body
The body is the center of your paper, where you draw out your main arguements. Below are some guidelines to help you write it.
Organize using a logical plan
Organize the body of your review according to a logical plan. Here are two options:
First, summarize, in a series of paragraphs, those major points from the book that you plan to discuss; incorporating each major point into a topic sentence for a paragraph is an effective organizational strategy. Second, discuss and evaluate these points in a following group of paragraphs. (There are two dangers lurking in this pattern--you may allot too many paragraphs to summary and too few to evaluation, or you may re-summarize too many points from the book in your evaluation section.)
Alternatively, you can summarize and evaluate the major points you have chosen from the book in a point-by-point schema. That means you will discuss and evaluate point one within the same paragraph (or in several if the point is significant and warrants extended discussion) before you summarize and evaluate point two, point three, etc., moving in a logical sequence from point to point to point. Here again, it is effective to use the topic sentence of each paragraph to identify the point from the book that you plan to summarize or evaluate.
Questions to keep in mind as you write
With either organizational pattern, consider the following questions:
What are the author's most important points? How do these relate to one another? (Make relationships clear by using transitions: "In contrast," an equally strong argument," "moreover," "a final conclusion," etc.).
What types of evidence or information does the author present to support his or her points? Is this evidence convincing, controversial, factual, one-sided, etc.? (Consider the use of primary historical material, case studies, narratives, recent scientific findings, statistics.)
Where does the author do a good job of conveying factual material as well as personal perspective? Where does the author fail to do so? If solutions to a problem are offered, are they believable, misguided, or promising?
Which parts of the work (particular arguments, descriptions, chapters, etc.) are most effective and which parts are least effective? Why?
Where (if at all) does the author convey personal prejudice, support illogical relationships, or present evidence out of its appropriate context?
Keep your opinions distinct and cite your sources
Remember, as you discuss the author's major points, be sure to distinguish consistently between the author's opinions and your own.
Keep the summary portions of your discussion concise, remembering that your task as a reviewer is to re-see the author's work, not to re-tell it.
And, importantly, if you refer to ideas from other books and articles or from lecture and course materials, always document your sources, or else you might wander into the realm of plagiarism.
Include only that material which has relevance for your review and use direct quotations sparingly. The Writing Center has other handouts to help you paraphrase text and introduce quotations.Â
Write the conclusion
You will want to use the conclusion to state your overall critical evaluation.
You have already discussed the major points the author makes, examined how the author supports arguments, and evaluated the quality or effectiveness of specific aspects of the book or article.
Now you must make an evaluation of the work as a whole, determining such things as whether or not the author achieves the stated or implied purpose and if the work makes a significant contribution to an existing body of knowledge.
Consider the following questions:
Is the work appropriately subjective or objective according to the author's purpose?
How well does the work maintain its stated or implied focus? Does the author present extraneous material? Does the author exclude or ignore relevant information?
How well has the author achieved the overall purpose of the book or article? What contribution does the work make to an existing body of knowledge or to a specific group of readers? Can you justify the use of this work in a particular course?
What is the most important final comment you wish to make about the book or article? Do you have any suggestions for the direction of future research in the area? What has reading this work done for you or demonstrated to you?