1
HIST/NUFD 202: Food in World History
Professor Julia Landweber
Book Review Guidelines
A book review essay is an exercise in sustained critical analysis. If you have never been assigned to write a book review before, the first thing to know is that a book review is different from a book report.
A good book review does more than merely restate the contents of the book or describe the book’s narrative (though it should do both in some measure). To do these things and nothing else is to write a book report, an exercise best left behind with high school. A book review is aimed at an intelligent and generally well-read audience who is presumed to be unfamiliar with the particular matter imparted by this particular book. A solid review of a non-fiction book needs to do three things:
Tell the reader what the book is about (in this case, the historical subject).
Describe what argument the author is making throughout the book.
Provide a thoughtful assessment of the author’s accomplishments within the book.
A really strong scholarly review goes one step further and additionally assesses the book’s place within the larger realm of other published work of significance on the subject—but that is beyond the scope of this assignment as it would then become a real research project, and I am not asking you to take that step.
Book reviews are always critical, but that does not mean they are negative. In fact, a review should never be a sustained trashing of the work in question unless the reviewer is truly offended by the entire work. Critical assessment is seldom negative. Think of what is meant by the phrases “literary criticism,” “critical acclaim,” and “critical praise.” Critical assessment means well-reasoned judgment. Does the book work? Does it work well or poorly, and how well, and why or why not? Does it answer a need, fit a niche, contribute ideas or evidence (or both) of value that have not been said before? Some history books even take up (and agree with) previously-argued positions but reframe them in such a way as to present a fresh argument and new historical insights.
Finally, a word of warning: most of the books suggested for this assignment have already been reviewed in print somewhere. Do not copy content from those reviews. That constitutes plagiarism and, if caught, will not be tolerated. Plagiarism will result in an automatic F for the assignment. Be your own critic and assess the book yourself.
Good book reviews typically address the following points (not necessarily in this order, and no need to dwell equally on all six points):
1. Insofar as you can, place the book within the larger debate on its subject (with works of history, this is called “historiography”). This should be based entirely on information within the book – usually you’ll find this in the Acknowledgements, Introduction, or Preface or if those are not present, in the first chapter. These materials usually consist in large part of important secondary works the author relied on, or experts they consulted, or fieldwork they conducted (you should also check the notes and bibliography, if present). How does the author use his or her secondary and primary sources? Are they used well or not?
2. What are the book’s larger contributions to its subject? As with #1, you’ll find a lot of what you need to answer these questions is set out in the Introduction and/or first chapter, and then expanded upon in the body of the book.
New information? New sources? Old sources interpreted in a fresh way?
New methodology?
New argument?
New angle on existing debate?
Is the book written for a general readership, an audience of scholars, or both? Clues can be found in the author’s background, the book’s appearance, the tone of writing, and from the absence or presence (and complexity, if present) of a scholarly apparatus of notes, bibliography, and index.
3. Assess the author’s assumptions, historiographical and methodological frameworks, psychological baggage, etc. How do these assumptions shape the work?
What methodologies does the author work from? For example, does the author’s interpretation focus primarily on political, social, cultural, intellectual, or scientific angles, or on some mix of these, or on other issues? Does the author read evidence in a new way, or apply new methods to interpreting history?
Does the author focus on individual biography to advance his or her thesis, or on the narration of broad historical developments, or on a combination of the two?
Does the author demonstrate awareness of gender, class, or race/ethnicity issues with relation to the subject? Is there a sustained focus on any of these issues within the work?
4. Perform a critical assessment of the book’s weaknesses as well as strengths:
How clear is the book’s argument?
Does the author exhibit a clear understanding of the full problem?
How weak or strong is the logic of argument? Is the argument sustained well throughout the book, or does the author appear to wander within his or her subject?
How weak or strong is the historical narrative? Does it work well? Is it too lengthy or detailed, or insufficiently detailed, or just right?
5. How does the author use specific pieces of evidence to make his or her argument, to gain his or her conclusions?
Can a document only be looked at in the way the author chooses to use it?
Is a body of evidence being ignored? to disadvantage?
6. Does the author suggest what should be the next set of questions on the topic, or does the author leave the reader to figure that out for yourself? No book is ever “the last word” on a subject, even if the author suggests it is.
What’s the next step?
Where should historians go from here?