Book reviews

These are guidelines for writing a book review for any of my classes

Picking a book (assuming I have not already picked one for you)
    This is the hardest and also the most rewarding part of the assignment. Since you can pick a book on pretty much any topic you like, there is no reason that you should end up with something boring, but on the other hand if you wait till the last minute you may get stuck with something you find boring or that is hard to get a good review out of. The book you pick should be a historical monograph, not a survey text, an edited volume, a memoir or a novel. All of those things are useful in studying history, but they are not the point of this assignment.
    A monograph is a book on one, fairly limited, topic. It is not the same as a survey text (History of Medieval Europe) or a collection of essays. Usually a monograph is based on primary source research and it is almost always by a single author.  It is usually pretty easy to tell a monograph from other types of books by the title. Monographs usually have a colon, thus Dangerous Pleasures: Prostitution and Modernity in Twentieth-Century Shanghai by Gail Hershatter and Japan's Total Empire: Manchuria and the Culture of Wartime Imperialism by Louise Young are both monographs. Usually what comes before the colon is intended to draw in readers, and the bit after tells you what the book actually is. Monographs don't always have a colon. Policing Shanghai 1927-1937 by Frederick Wakeman and Forests and Peasant Politics in Modern France by Tamara Whited are both monographs. When in doubt you should look at the table of contents and try to figure out if the book is focused on a single topic and has a clear enough thesis for you to critique.
    Academic presses (ones run by universities, like the Harvard University Press, Cambridge, etc.) publish most of the better historical monographs. If a university press publishes something a group of scholars have decided that it is a good book with something to say. They aren't always right, but they rarely publish really awful books. Routledge and St.Martin's, among others, also publish solid works on history. In general you should try to pick fairly recent books, after 1980 at least, since many (though not all) older books have been at least partially superseded by later work. If you are only going to read one book on a topic you might as well read the most current one.
    Your book must be approved by me before you can start reading, so you need to start work on this early. Note that your book selection is part of your grade for the paper in the sense that if you pick a good book writing a good review will be easy, and if you pick a bad book it will be very hard and maybe impossible. I will be able to tell you if a book looks o.k. to me, but the ultimate responsibility for picking a good book rests with you.

Where to find a book
 There are a few good books in the library, but you will probably end up having to use interlibrary loan or PALCI. It is important, therefore, to get started on finding a book as soon as possible. The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature (it's in the library (REF D 20 .155 1995) is probably the best source for a good book. I can also make recommendations if you tell me what you are looking for. I have provided a short list of possible books for some of my Asian history classes on the web site. Some are in the library, some are not. Some may not even be good review books, (I have not read all of these, many are just things that caught my eye) but they should give you an idea what sort of things to look for. 
Reading the book
    This is not as easy as it may sound. These are hard books with some hard ideas in them, and the point is not just to run your eyes over each page, but to understand the author's argument enough to make a critique of it. This takes at least three steps, figuring out what the argument is, figuring out how it is being proved, and then putting the book in context.
    The first of these, figuring out the argument, is usually easy, although authors sometimes assume you know quite a bit about the topic already and therefore don't explain what they are arguing as clearly as they could. It is important to figure out what the book is trying to do before you start reading page by page. You should usually start by reading the introduction and the conclusion. When you start reading the body of the book you should already know what the author is trying to prove, making the second part of your task, figuring out how well this has been proved, fairly easy.
    In your paper you need to explain why you think something is convincing. It is not enough to just say that you accept or don't accept their argument, you need to be able to explain why you think that. Almost always you will start having opinions about the book before you are capable of explaining why you think this and proving to the reader why they should think the same. This is natural, but you need to move beyond that. Rather than thinking of the author as Moses coming down from the mountain with the truth, think of them as a lawyer presenting a case and think of yourself as the jury. What evidence is the author using? What are their sources? In writing a book review you will probably have to spend more time looking at footnotes then you are used to.
    The third part, putting the book in context is the hardest. This book was written in the context of an existing scholarship and the author is both responding to and building on that literature. In an academic review you would be expected to explain how this book fit into this larger literature from the point of view of a person who had read this larger literature. You obviously have not done that, but you have at least read a textbook on this topic, and should have some knowledge. You should be able to make at least a few comments on how this fits into our larger understanding of the period. 
Writing the paper
    The book review is not a book report. I do not want a mere summary of the book, but rather an analysis of how well the author has done what they set out to do. Do not go through the book summarizing chapter by chapter. In your first page or so tell me what the book is trying to prove. Then tell me if you think they have proved their thesis or not, and what evidence in the book makes you think this. While your opinion is at the center of the review, it is not a personal opinion. (This book was boooring!) but rather proving to the reader of the review that your position is correct. Why do you think what you do about the book? What specific evidence does the book give that convinces you? Why do you think that some parts of the book are weak? Although you don't want too many long quotes or too much summary of the argument, you will need some in order to back up your assertions. You don't have to entirely agree or disagree with the author. Most monographs come in several parts, and you may find some more convincing than others.
   At then end you may or may not want to include a section on the larger implications of the book. All monographs are part of a larger literature, and in a review for a journal you would be expected to explain how this book fits into this. You might also be expected to talk about the author's sources. In this case you may or may not think that you have enough information to discuss these issues, but if you feel that you can it is almost always a good idea.
Grades
  Your grade for the paper will be based on
-The appropriateness of the book you selected (if you selected a book)
-The clarity of your explanation of the author's arguement
-The cogency of your critique of the book
-Proper format and presentation

-You may want to look at my general guidelines on writing  for some tips on how to structure your argument.
-Your review should be typed and double-spaced. You should provide the title of the book, the name of the author, the publisher and the year of publication. You should use references (embedded page numbers are fine) to show where the information in your paper is coming from.
-If the paper is turned in on time and all the other requirements have been met you will have the option of revising the paper for a higher grade. All revisions must be turned in within one week of the date the papers are returned. Note that to get a better grade the paper must actually better. If you struggled with it the first time you will probably struggle with it the second time, and I strongly recommend you come and talk to be before starting on the revisions.

Here is a  Sample book review

Here are some general guidelines on writing