Tags: Thesistools EnqueteAlexander Pope Essay On ManGod Or Gorilla EssayTorture Essay OutlineCharter Schools EssaysPreparing For Christmas EssayAll About Me Essay ExampleFinancial Plan For Small BusinessPhd Thesis Discourse AnalysisDefintion Essay About Grandmothers
The critical book review in history is unique to the discipline and a skill that is expected to be mastered by history students after their first year.Understanding what The purpose of the critical book review for history is to share information about an historical topic - it is not a book report that summarizes the content.You might have to read the whole book in some cases to determine what the authors thesis is.
Education, class, ethnicity, nationality, gender, and political or religious affiliations may affect the authors expertise, bias, or interpretation. Does the author present new information or evidence?
Is the author an authority or qualified to write on the subject. Does the author raise new issues or leave unanswered questions for other scholars?
The objectives in book reviews between the disciplines are different animals.
The most difficult part of any assignment is understanding what needs to be done, and how.
Writing a book review requires that you assess the books strengths and weaknesses as they pertain to historiography - it is not a literary review.
You should also tell the reader why you liked or disliked the book.Book reviews are short and concise, they may vary from half a page to several pages depending on the assignment.The introduction is extremely important, it must be short, effective, and it must contain your thesis.Developing a good thesis is often the most difficult part of writing.What happened, why is it interesting, why or how did it happen?Journals are also a good place to find this information and to look for scholarly book reviews that will also help you understand the form, and give you an idea of what your review should look like. The book review is simply an essay with three parts: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.The three parts of the critical book review for the historian are: who wrote it, why did they write it, and what do they have to offer. Arguments are intended to extend our knowledge, and also can be described as having three parts: a premise, supporting evidence, and a conclusion.I also suspected that there was a difference in the objectives between English and History critical book reviews.My suspicions were confirmed as soon as I read some critical history book reviews.1 Biographical information about the credibility, and expertise of the author must be taken into consideration.Who is the author, what is his or her background, how does the authors background affect his or her writing? Is the argument well supported, with good documentation or does it have contradictions? What is new or different about this book, or does it offer anything new?