[Solution]GUIDELINES FOR CRITICAL BOOK REVIEW

Preliminary Considerations First, one must understand that a critical book review is not a book report (a summary of the contents of a book). A…

Preliminary Considerations
First, one must understand that a critical book review is not a book report (a summary of the
contents of a book). A critical book review is a vehicle for examining and discussing issues the
book itself raises or fails to raise. One writes a critical book review for the benefit of those who
might not presently have time to read the book but who nevertheless need to learn more about
its basic approach should they desire to read or study it at a future time. The job of the book
reviewer is to inform these readers concerning any merits and/or shortcomings the book may
have. From information based on a well-written review, the reader may conclude that this book
is either indispensable or inconsequential.
Components of a Critical Book Review
A. Give complete bibliographical information at the top of the page (title, author, publisher,
place of publication, date of publication, number of pages, and name of reviewer).
Use the following format:
Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament, by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
l987. 250 pages. Reviewed by Randy C. Slocum.
B. Briefly state the reason this book was chosen for review. State the author’s credentials
(education, place of employment, previous achievements, etc.) as a preface to giving the book a
serious hearing. Biographical information about the author should be included only as it
demonstrates the author’s competency to write the book. Within the context of the paper, do
not use titles (Dr., Rev., etc.). In most brief reviews, you will likely need to limit the
introduction to one or two paragraphs.
C. Briefly (in one or two well-written sentences) summarize the thesis of the book.
This is a crucial step because the thesis contains the reason why the author produced this
particular book (there may be dozens on the market with similar subject matter).
The thesis will state the author’s basic presuppositions and approach. The critical nature of the
book review will then grow from the reviewer’s conclusion that the book does or does not
achieve the author’s stated purpose.
D. The main body of a critical book review will be concerned with “thesis development.”
That is, did the author achieve the stated purpose? In this section the reviewer will inspect each
of the chapters of the book to see how the thesis is (or is not) developed. If the author makes
progress and develops the thesis convincingly, providing adequate information and statistical
data, the reviewer says so, providing concrete examples and citing their page numbers in the
text.
Given the limited amount of space in a brief book review, footnotes should not be utilized.
Quotations or ideas taken directly from the text should be followed parenthetically by the page
number of the quotation. The abbreviation for page(s) (p./pp.) should not be used.
Example:
Rainer argues that evangelistic churches should focus on reaching youth (20). Indeed, he
writes, “Many churches fail to recognize that adolescence is a critical time of receptivity to the
gospel” (21).
If the thesis is poorly developed or if the examples are inadequate to support the assertions of
the author, the reviewer will point this out as well. Most critical book reviews will contain both
praise and criticism, carefully weighed and balanced against one another.
Remember the purpose of a critical book review is not to provide a summary of the book. You
may assume that the professor and the grader know the contents of the book.
Questions the reviewer will seek to answer in this section might include:
• Is there an adequate, consistent development of the author’s stated thesis? Why or why
not?
• What is the author’s purpose, i.e., what does he/she hope to accomplish through this
book? Does the author accomplish the purpose? If so, how does he/she do so? If not,
why not?
• Does the author approach the subject with any biases, i.e., do the author’s
theological, experiential, philosophical, denominational, or cultural perspectives
influence his/her conclusions?
• Does the author properly support his/her thesis? Does the author adequately consider
and refute opposing viewpoints? Is the book limited in application to specific types of
churches? Is the book relevant to contemporary culture?
• Does the author have to resort to suppression of contrary evidence in order to make the
thesis credible (slanting)? If so, what additional evidence would weaken the case?
• Is the thesis sound but marred by a flawed procedure?
• Is the author’s case proved, or would another thesis have been more appropriately
chosen?
E. Finally, a summary section should be attached. How does this book differ from other
treatments of the same subject matter? What is unique and valuable about this approach as
opposed to the others? Would the reviewer recommend this book above others? Why or why
not?
This final summary should include the major strengths and weaknesses of the book and
evaluate its value for readers who may be interested in that particular field of inquiry. Your
primary purpose in this section is to respond both positively and negatively to the book’s
contents and presentation. Needless to say, this response should be more in-depth than, “This
book is a good book that should be recommended reading for everyone.” On the other hand,
“This book is a lousy book not worth reading” is also inadequate. Central to this is the basic
question of whether or not the author has achieved the book’s stated purpose.
Answer questions such as:
• What are the strengths of the book, i.e., what contributions does the book make?
• Why should a person read this book?
• What did you learn from this book?
• How might you apply the lessons of this book in your ministry context?
• Would you recommend the book to other ministers? to seminary students? to
laypersons? Why, or why not?
Do not allow your response to this question to become lengthy (for this paper is not primarily
an evaluation of your ministry), but do make some application.
Throughout your critique, be specific in your evaluations. Do not just tell the reader about the
book; tell and show the reader with concrete examples from the book. As previously
suggested, include page numbers when making specific reference to the book.
F. The length of the review should be between five and seven pages, double-spaced.
Style Issues for a Critical Book Review
Turabian’s A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (7
ed.) is the
accepted standard for style issues.
The following guidelines are included to counter common style errors:
A. Utilize this suggested outline to guide your book review, but do not include the specific
subheadings (“Bibliographical Entry,” “Summary of the Book,” etc.) in the essay. The
brevity of the review demands a smooth flow from one section to another without including
the subheadings.
B. Use first-person sparingly; however, you may use “I” when referring to your opinion of a
text.
C. Avoid contractions in formal writing.
D. Use active voice as much as possible.
E. Be clear and concise. A brief review allows no room for wandering from your objective.
F. Use your spell-checker, but do not trust it. A spell-check will not catch the error in such
sentences as, “The whole church voted too pass the amendment.” Use your eyes as well as
your spell-checker.
G. Proofread your paper. Finish the paper, and proof it. Lay it aside, and proof it again at a
later time. If you do not catch your errors, someone else will.

The post GUIDELINES FOR CRITICAL BOOK REVIEW

Assignment status: Solved by our experts

>>>Click here to get this paper written at the best price. 100% Custom, 0% plagiarism.<<<

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *