The four stages of writing a book review
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. Introduce the book:
- Outline the general topic Indicate who the book is for
- Place the book in its field.
2. Outline the content of the book:
- Give a general view of its the organisation
- State the topic of each chapter/section.
3. Highlight parts of the book:
- Select particular chapters or themes for evaluation
- Critique the argument of the book.
4. Evaluate the book:
- Comment on aspects of the content
- Indicate how it meets the readers’ needs
- Remark on its format, price, and value for money
- Make recommendations for purchase or otherwise.
Looking closely at 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.
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
- What the author says the book is about
- Possible key findings
- 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 produce an initial draft, which is usually too long, and then I rework and refine it through careful editing –until it emerges, in my view, as a highly polished piece of prose!"
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 poor 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 author’s credentials
- Written to cherish the reviewer’s 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. The first stage involves 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.
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 below might prove useful in this respect. In my experience, however, rather than just summarizing a text, better book reviewers spend more time critiquing it.
