I. Introduction (Less Than One Page)
An introduction to a book review is generally short and direct. However, it must provide two key elements: background and thesis.
Background: First, your introduction should identify the book and author under review along with any essential historical or historiographical background: What time period and region are discussed? What is the historical question or topic that the book addresses?
Thesis: Somewhere in your introduction (generally toward the end) you must provide a succinct, clear evaluation of the book. This evaluation is the thesis for your book review. Your thesis should encompass three main components:
What the main argument of the book is.
Your evaluation of the book such as its strengths and contributions or weaknesses and shortcomings.
Why and/or in what ways you think the work demonstrates these strengths and weaknesses.
II. Summary of Key Arguments (At Least One Page)
After your introduction, you should generally provide a brief summary or overview of the book. Take great care not to simply repeat or mirror everything in the book. Step back and identify what its essential arguments are and briefly summarize them. You may want to comment on:
What is the books thesis? How is it similar to or different from other historians work on a similar topic?
How is it organized? What are the major arguments?
What types of evidence are presented?
III. Evaluation/Analysis (At Least Three Pages)
This section should constitute the bulk of your review. In it, you need to explain and develop the evaluation made in your thesis. Make sure to use examples and quotations from the book to illustrate and prove your assessment of the work. For example, if your thesis argues that the work provides a careful and detailed examination of a topic, you should point toward places in the book where it does so. Similarly, if you argue that the work fails to recognize a particular perspective, give examples of places in the text that you think would have benefited from attention to that perspective.
IV. Conclusion ( At Least Two Paragraphs)
Your conclusion should provide a succinct summation of your review. Overall, what does this work contribute to its field? What limitations does it possess? Does it suggest interesting avenues for future research? How does your analysis of the book help readers to understand the time period being studied or how historians have understood that period?
Related Completed Projects
Briefly compare and contrast the two different narratives (P and J) pointing out style and detail differences [This should be a very brief mainly to show style differences that connect to the narrators purpose for the flood];
Discuss a Tort law’s wider roles.
Write a discussion on working with Clinical Complexity in Contemporaneous Mental Health Practice.
Discuss the merits of Positive Psychology, then consider Yakusho’s criticism of Positive Psychology.