How to...

write a book review

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/authors/guides/write/book_review.htm?part=1&view=print

Article Sections
1.
2.
3.
4.

The four stages of writing a book review

Examples of how academics write book reviews
What academics look for
A potential checklist for book reviewers

The four stages of writing a book review

Book reviews are a special form of academic writing. They have well-known structures
with familiar components. Here, James Hartley of the School of Psychology, Keele
University, UK, consults with academics on writing the perfect book review and presents
a potential checklist for book reviewers.
When writing book reviews colleagues use a variety of phrases that carry hidden
meanings. Consider, "This is a surprising book" or "This is a useful book for the library".
What these phrases really mean are, "This book is better than I expected" and "This book
is not worth buying for your personal use".
When we are familiar with the format and the hidden meanings of sentences we know
that we are reading a particular text genre in this case a book review. Essentially we can
always tell we are reading a book review from the language and the structure that it
employs. Writers of book reviews typically progress through four stages, as follows:

1. They introduce the book by:

outlining the general topic

indicating who the book is for
placing the book in its field.

2. Next, they often outline the content of the book by:

giving a general view of its the organization

stating the topic of each chapter/section.

3. Then they highlight parts of the book by:

selecting particular chapters or themes for evaluation

critiquing the argument of the book.

4. And finally, they evaluate the book by:

commenting on aspects of the content

indicating how it meets the readers needs
remarking on its format, price, and value for money
making recommendations for purchase or otherwise.

When we examine book reviews we find that most, if not all of these components are
present, even if they are not always given in the order listed. Some reviewers, for
example, like to start with items from Stage 4 evaluation then move to Stages 1-3,
and finally conclude by justifying their original opening evaluation.

Printed from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/authors/guides/write/book_review.htm?

part=1 on Saturday November 19th, 2011
Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Examples of how academics write book reviews

Example 1
"I usually read completely the books I am reviewing (so as to be sure that I do not
misunderstand them), marking parts that I think are particularly meaningful. Then I start
by saying what the book is about and the intended audience (since having this
information first may allow readers who are not interested to skip the rest of the review,
and readers who are interested to raise their attention). Next I outline how the topic is
developed, as concerns facets of content and depth of treatment. Then I point out what are
in my opinion the points of strengths and weaknesses of the book. Finally, I try to give a
global evaluation of my appreciation and possible usefulness of the book. Finally I polish
the form and try to bring it to the required length. This writing phase lasts usually around
two hours."

Example 2
"I read the book through, marking on it possible points for inclusion on
1. what the author says the book is about,
2. possible key findings, and
3. controversial statements.

I then decide on which of these to include and which bits of the book to write about and
what to leave out (because of space limitations). I word process the first draft, which is
usually too long, and then I cut it and continually refine it through numerous editings
with periods for incubation between each one until it emerges, in my view, as a highly
polished piece of prose!"

Printed from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/authors/guides/write/book_review.htm?

part=2 on Saturday November 19th, 2011
Emerald Group Publishing Limited

What academics look for

I have reported elsewhere the results that I found when I sent an electronic questionnaire
on reading and writing book reviews to groups of academics in the arts, sciences and
social sciences (Hartley, 2006).
Approximately 50 people in each group replied. Almost two-thirds of these respondents
recalled reading a dreadful book review. Some of the things said about such reviews were
that they were:

pointless, uninformative, indecisive and boring

a mere listing of the contents
pretentious, unkind, careless
personally abusive about the authors credentials
written to cherish the reviewers ego.

Generally speaking, book reviews were not highly regarded if they simply outlined the
content of a book, in a chapter by chapter format.On the other hand, approximately 55 per
cent of the respondents recalled reading an outstanding book review. Here it was thought
that such reviews:

gave a balanced critical evaluation of the text

made seemingly dull topics interesting
were well written, succinct, and informative
displayed awesome scholarship
made people want to buy the book.

How then can authors write such "outstanding" book reviews? Respondents to my
questionnaire were reluctant to say. Most argued that it depended on the book in question.
One, however, wrote: I use a basic sort of recipe that touches on all the information
that I think readers of book reviews need.
Two stages appear to be needed here. First of all there is the preliminary reading and
thinking about the book. Sometimes this is done before putting pen to paper, but some

reviewers start making notes from the outset. At this stage then reviewers are concerned
with selecting and thinking about information that will be relevant to the four-stage
writing procedure outlined above. Sometimes this will involve a trip to the library or to
particular websites to check up on the required information.
Next comes the actual writing of the review. Here different writers have different
preferences. The quotations given in the above panel provide but two examples.
Whatever the procedures, it is important that a book review contains a number of key
features. The checklist in section 4 might prove useful in this respect. In my experience,
however, rather than just summarizing a text, better book reviewers spend more time
critiquing it.

Printed from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/authors/guides/write/book_review.htm?

part=3 on Saturday November 19th, 2011
Emerald Group Publishing Limited

A potential checklist for book reviewers

Make sure that your review contains:

An early paragraph saying what the book is about, and putting it in context
Information about the intended audience
A critique of the argument/content of the book
Remarks on the strengths and limitations of the book
A note on the format, length and price (or value for money)
A note (if appropriate) on how well the text is supported by
tables/diagrams/illustrations
Any supporting academic references.

If the following details are not supplied for you, please make sure that your review
contains:

Accurate details of the authors/editors names and initials

Title of the publication
Edition
Date of publication
Publisher and place of publication
ISBN number
Format (hardback, paperback or soft cover)
Number of pages
Price.

Try to make your review readable and entertaining. Write it in the first person, as though
you are describing the book in a letter to a close friend.

Reference
Hartley, J. (2006), Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines, Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 11941207.
Copies available from the author.

Printed from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/authors/guides/write/book_review.htm?

part=4 on Saturday November 19th, 2011
Emerald Group Publishing Limited