historical book review examples

How to Write a History Book Review

Writing a book review is one of the fundamental skills that every historian must learn. An undergraduate student’s book review should accomplish two main goals:

• Lay out an author’s argument, and
• Most importantly, critique the historical argument.

It is important to remember that a book review is not a book report. You need to do more than simply lay out the contents or plot-line of a book. You may briefly summarize the historical narrative or contents but must focus your review on the historical argument being made and how effectively the author has supported this argument with historical evidence. If you can, you may also fit that argument into the wider historiography about the subject.

The 'How to ... ' of Historical Book Reviews Writing a book review may seem very difficult, but in fact there are some simple rules you can follow to make the process much easier.

Before you read, find out about the author’s prior work What academic discipline was the author trained in? What other books, articles, or conference papers has s/he written? How does this book relate to or follow from the previous work of the author? Has the author or this book won any awards? This information helps you understand the author’s argument and critique the book.

As you read, write notes for each of the following topics.

• Write a few sentences about the author’s approach or genre of history. Is the focus on gender? Class? Race? Politics? Culture? Labor? Law? Something else? A combination? If you can identify the type of history the historian has written, it will be easier to determine the historical argument the author is making.
• Summarize the author’s subject and argument. In a few sentences, describe the time period, major events, geographical scope and group or groups of people who are being investigated in the book. Why has the author chosen the starting and ending dates of the book’s narrative? Next, discover the major thesis or theses of the book, the argument(s) that the author makes and attempts to support with evidence. These are usually, but not always, presented in a book’s introduction. It might help to look for the major question that the author is attempting to answer and then try to write his or her answer to that question in a sentence or two. Sometimes there is a broad argument supported by a series of supporting arguments. It is not always easy to discern the main argument but this is the most important part of your book review.
• What is the structure of the book? Are the chapters organized chronologically, thematically, by group of historical actors, from general to specific, or in some other way? How does the structure of the work enhance or detract from the argument?
• Look closely at the kinds of evidence the author has used to prove the argument. Is the argument based on data, narrative, or both? Are narrative anecdotes the basis of the argument or do they supplement other evidence? Are there other kinds of evidence that the author should have included? Is the evidence convincing? If so, find a particularly supportive example and explain how it supports the author’s thesis. If not, give an example and explain what part of the argument is not supported by evidence. You may find that some evidence works, while some does not. Explain both sides, give examples, and let your readers know what you think overall.
• Closely related to the kinds of evidence are the kinds of sources the author uses. What different kinds of primary sources are used? What type of source is most important in the argument? Do these sources allow the author to adequately explore the subject? Are there important issues that the author cannot address based on these sources? How about the secondary sources? Are there one or more secondary books that the author seems to lean heavily on in support of the argument? Are there works that the author disagrees with in the text? This will tell the reader how the work fits into the historiography of the subject and whether it is presenting a major new interpretation.
• Is the argument convincing as a whole? Is there a particular place where it breaks down? Why? Is there a particular element that works best? Why? Would you recommend this book to others, and if so, for whom is it appropriate? General readers? Undergraduates? Graduates and specialists in this historical subject? Why? Would you put any qualifications on that recommendation?

After having written up your analyses of each of these topics, you are ready to compose your review. There is no one way to format a book review but here is a common format that can be varied according to what you think needs to be highlighted and what length is required.

• Introduce the author, the historical period and topic of the book. Tell the reader what genre of history this work belongs to or what approach the author has used. Set out the main argument.
• Summarize the book’s organization and give a little more detail about the author’s sub-arguments. Here you would also work in your assessment of the evidence and sources used.
• Strengths and weaknesses or flaws in the book are usually discussed next. It is up to you to decide in what order these should come, but if you assess the book positively overall, do not spend inordinate space on the book’s faults and vice versa.
• In the conclusion, you may state your recommendations for readership unless that has been covered in your discussion of the book’s strengths and weaknesses. You might review how convincing the argument was, say something about the importance or uniqueness of the argument and topic, or describe how the author adds to our understanding of a particular historical question.

Writing a Book Review for History

Your professor may ask you to write a book review, probably of a scholarly historical monograph. Here are some questions you might ask of the book. Remember that a good review is critical, but critical does not necessarily mean negative. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, nor is it a suggested outline. Of course, you can ask these same questions of any secondary historical work, even if you're not writing a review.

• Who is the author, and what are his or her qualifications? Has the author written other books on the subject?
• When was the book written, and how does it fit into the scholarly debate on the subject? For example, is Smith writing to refute that idiot Jones; to qualify the work of the competent but unimaginative Johnson; or to add humbly to the evidence presented by the redoubtable Brown’s classic study? Be sure not to confuse the author’s argument with those arguments he or she presents only to criticize later. 
• What is the book’s basic argument? (Getting this right is the foundation of your review.)
• What is the author’s method? For example, does the author rely strictly on narrative and anecdotes, or is the book analytical in some way?
• What kinds of evidence does the author use? For example, what is the balance of primary and secondary sources? Has the author done archival work? Is the source base substantial, or does it look thin? Is the author up-to-date in the scholarly literature?
• How skillfully and imaginatively has the author used the evidence?
• Does the author actually use all of the material in the bibliography, or is some of it there for display?
• What sorts of explicit or implicit ideological or methodological assumptions does the author bring to the study? For example, does he or she profess bland objectivity? A Whig view of history? Marxism?
• How persuasive is the author’s argument?
• Is the argument new, or is it old wine in new bottles?
• Is the argument important, with wide-ranging implications, or is it narrow and trivial?
• Is the book well organized and skillfully written?
• What is your overall critical assessment of the book?
• What is the general significance, if any, of the book? (Make sure that you are judging the book that the author actually wrote, not complaining that the author should have written a different book.)

Office / Department Name

Nesbitt-Johnston Writing Center

Contact Name

Jennifer Ambrose

Writing Center Director

Help us provide an accessible education, offer innovative resources and programs, and foster intellectual exploration.

Site Search

Writing a History Book Review

• Writing Essays
• Writing Research Papers
• English Grammar
• M.Ed., Education Administration, University of Georgia
• B.A., History, Armstrong State University

There are several acceptable ways to write a book review, but if your teacher doesn’t provide you with specific instructions, you might feel a little lost when it comes to formatting your paper.

There is a format used by many teachers and college professors when it comes to reviewing history texts. It isn’t found in any style guide, but it does contain aspects of the Turabian style of writing.

Although it might seem a little strange to you, many history teachers like to see a full citation for the book you’re reviewing (Turabian style) at the head of the paper, right below the title. While it might seem odd to start with a citation, this format mirrors the appearance of book reviews that are published in scholarly journals.

Below the title and citation, write the body of the book review in essay form without subtitles.

As you write your book review, remember that your goal is to analyze the text by discussing the strengths and weaknesses—as opposed to summarizing the content. You should also note that it’s best to be as balanced as possible in your analysis. Include both strengths and weaknesses. On the other hand, if you think the book was either dreadfully written or ingenious, you should say so!

Other Important Elements to Include in Your Analysis

• Date/range of the book. Define the time period that the book covers. Explain if the book progresses chronologically or if it addresses events by topic. If the book addresses one particular subject, explain how that event fits into a broader time scale (like the Reconstruction era).
• Point of view. Can you glean from the text if the author has a strong opinion about an event? Is the author objective, or does he express a liberal or conservative viewpoint?
• Sources. Does the author use secondary sources or primary sources, or both? Review the bibliography of the text to see if there is a pattern or any interesting observation about the sources the writer uses. Are the sources all new or all old? That fact could provide interesting insight into the validity of a thesis.
• Organization. Discuss whether the book makes sense the way it is written or if it could have been better organized. Authors put a lot of time into organizing a book and sometimes they just don’t get it right!
• Author information. What do you know about the author? What other books has he/she written? Does the author teach at a university? What training or experience has contributed to the author’s command of the topic?

The last paragraph of your review should contain a summary of your review and a clear statement that conveys your overall opinion. It is common to make a statement such as:

• This book delivered on its promise because...
• This book was a disappointment because...
• This book contributed significantly to the argument that...
• The book [title] provides the reader with deep insight into...

The book review is an opportunity to give your true opinion about a book. Just remember to back up a strong statement like those above with evidence from the text.

• Turabian Style Guide With Examples
• The 12 Best Books on the French Revolution
• What Is a Citation?
• What Is a Senior Thesis?
• The Definition of a Review in Composition
• What Is a Bibliography?
• Formatting Papers in Chicago Style
• How to Write a Film Review
• APA In-Text Citations
• How to Write a Great Book Report
• Definition of Appendix in a Book or Written Work
• What Is an Annotated Bibliography?
• Bibliography: Definition and Examples
• Definition and Examples of Analysis in Composition
• Book Report: Definition, Guidelines, and Advice
• MLA Style Parenthetical Citations

Types of Writing Assignments

• Narrative History
• Response Papers
• Creative Approaches
• Annotated Bibliographies

Book Reviews

• Historiographic Essays
• Research Papers

Basic Considerations When Writing on History

• Cause and Effect
• Establishing a Broader Context
• Common Fallacies

Types of Sources

• Secondary Sources
• Primary Sources
• Fiction/Art/Poetry
• The Internet

Critical Reading

• Historiography
• Bias/Prejudice
• Evaluating Contradictory Data and Claims

Preparation and Writing

• Time Management
• Note-Taking Tips
• Developing a Thesis
• Organization
• Formulating a Conclusion

Basic Quoting Skills

• Quotation/Annotation
• Bibliographies
• Advanced Quoting Skills
• The Ethics of Quoting

Style and Editing

• Drafts and Revisions
• Common Stylistic Errors

What is a book review?

• A sample book review

A book review focuses on one book-length text and briefly summarizes its contents, identifying its thesis or main argument(s), and establishing the degree of success with which the author supports his or her claims.

Notice that the criteria of such an assignment far exceed the requirements for book reports, with which you are probably familiar from high school. A high school book report merely asks you to summarize the contents of a book and to conclude with your subjective opinion on whether you "liked" the book, and why. Such a high school-level book report is not a book review, which requires far more. Again: for a book review, you need to establish the argument(s) of the book you are writing on, the manner in which the author attempts to support that argument, and his or her success in so doing.

A well-executed book review will also hone your critical reading skills by inviting you to identify the author's perspective: does the author seem prone to bias or prejudice ? How does the author's slant (if any) find expression? Does he or she challenge other writers' work and, if so, is this done in a persuasive manner, or does it seem motivated by petty professional or personal rivalry (this also opens issues of historiography ). Is there anything in the author's own biography that may help explain (though not necessarily justify) any bias you have identified? All these are questions a well-executed book review will take into consideration.

To see the above-cited criteria applied to a book, click here .

Critical reading skills aside, the basic objective of a book review assignment is twofold: 1.) it gets you to read and write about a complex, fully-developed argument and, 2.) in so doing, heightens your awareness of how a good (or bad) argument can be constructed and supported, thus offering possible strategies and approaches you may want to pursue (or avoid) in your own writing.

When reviewing a book, you may want to answer some of the following questions:

• What is the book's main argument?
• Who seems to be the intended audience for the book?
• How is the book structured?
• Does the structure of the book (its various parts and chapters) reinforce its larger argument? How?
• What kinds of sources, or examples, does the book offer in support of its argument, and which are most (and least) effective? Why?
• Does the book engage other writers' works on the same subject and, even if not, how would you position the book in relation to other texts you are aware of on the same subject (texts you have read for class, for example)?
• Does the author seem biased or prejudiced in any way and, if so, is that prejudice or bias the product of the author's own background, as far as you can tell?
• How persuasive is the book (if certain aspects are more persuasive than others, explain why)

A Sample Book Review

Let us assume that the text assigned for your book review is Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II (New York: BasicBooks, 1997). This best-selling work of narrative history describes in graphic detail the imperial Japanese army's 1937 attack and occupation of the Chinese city of Nanking, which, Chang claims (in accordance with most Western historians) resulted in a six-week massacre of the civilian population marked by widespread rape, pillage, murder, and other atrocities. This event is often referred to as "the Rape of Nanking." On this text, see also historiographic essays and evaluating contradictory data and claims .

• most determinedly, that the Rape of Nanking, disputed by some Japanese historians, did occur;
• that the Japanese government, post-war Japanese historiography and, therefore, the Japanese population as a whole, have failed to fully acknowledge and apologize for the massacre, and indeed deny it;
• and, 3.) that what Chang refers to as the Japanese "cover up," the effort "to erase the entire massacre from public consciousness, thereby depriving its victims of their proper place in history" is an example of revisionist history equal to Holocaust-denial (14).

While her hoped-for objective, in this context, is that the book "will stir the conscience of Japan to accept responsibility for this incident," the larger argument is that history, including horrific history, needs to be told truthfully in order for us to learn from the past (16).

• The book's intended audience is a non-academic American readership, generally uninitiated into the events described. The book can fairly be called a work of popular narrative history directed at a mass audience.
• Part I briefly sets the scene by historicizing the Japanese codes of warfare and honor, then describes in detail the campaign waged by the Japanese and their many atrocities against the civilian population of Nanking in 1937. Many of these graphic descriptions are corroborated by eye witness accounts both Japanese and Chinese.
• Part II describes the ensuing Japanese occupation of the city. An important aspect of this section is Chang's description of the lengths to which the Japanese government and military went to limit media access to the city in order to prevent news of the massacre from spreading (she calls this "Japanese damage control" [147]). This section ends with the liberation of the city and the Allied war crimes tribunals, as a result of which seven high-ranking Japanese officers were condemned to death by hanging, and executed.
• Part III describes the efforts of post-war Japan, led by its politicians and historians, to cover up the events at Nanking, efforts Chang strongly condemns. She concludes with the observation that although, at the time of the massacre, it was "front-page news across the world, ... yet most of the world stood by and did nothing while an entire city was butchered." She likens this to "the more recent response to the atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda: while thousands have died almost unbelievably cruel deaths, the entire world has watched CNN and wrung its hands" (221).
• Chang chooses her three-part structure in order to communicate the diversity of voices that need to be heard in order to fully comprehend the events in Nanking: the victims', the perpetrators', and the historians'. That history has largely failed at its task to tell the full story is integral to her argument. Thus she likens her three-part structure to that of the Japanese film Rashomon , in which different witnesses of a rape recount its story, each from their own perspective (including the victim's, the rapist's, and that of an eyewitness). The accounts, of course, vary considerably: "It is for the reader to pull all the recollections together, to credit or discredit parts or all of each account, and through this process to create out of subjective and often self-serving perceptions a more objective picture of what might have occurred. This [film] should be included in the curriculum of any course treating criminal justice. Its point goes to the heart of history" (14).
• The book cites eye witness accounts on all sides, including Western eye witnesses: much mileage is generated by the memoirs of American missionaries who were on the scene at the time of the massacre. The book also provides a map of the city, marking specific locations of individual massacres, and twenty-four pages of photographs. Without a doubt, the graphic verbal accounts of those who witnessed the event are most effective: they are searing and hard to forget. Some of the photographs, too, are extremely graphic (they include multiple images of nude victims of rape, beheadings, corpses and the desecration of corpses, and severed heads); while these are very effective primary sources , their veracity has been retroactively challenged, which diminishes their effectiveness (see Historiography and Evaluating Contradictory Data and Claims ). The map, which appears prior to any of the main text, is ineffective: it shows no scale, does not identify Nanking's location within the larger landmass of China for the intended uninitiated readership, nor the troop movements of the Japanese army as they entered the city or the remnants of the Chinese army as they fled. These are events the book describes, but which find no visual correlation on the map itself. The sites of specific massacres visually identified on the map are simply marked "X" (there are approximately forty-five) but are not identified by name, and can therefore not be linked to specific events described in the later text.
• On the issue of other, related works on this subject, please follow the link to Historiographic Essays . Generally, there was no large body of literature on the Rape of Nanking prior to the publication of Chang's book, although the book itself has spawned a large number of responses, many of them in general agreement with Chang, some critical (these, mainly generated by Japanese scholars), and a few that denounce her book as an outright fabrication. Again, follow the link to historiographic essays and contradictory data and claims on this. Chang does not provide a bibliography. Part of her argument, of course (in 1997, the year of her book's publication) is that the Rape of Nanking had been a generally-forgotten event prior to her own efforts.
• Chang does seem prejudiced against the Japanese version of the event (again, this is integral to her argument and she openly reveals the animus she feels towards Japanese historians from the start; given the nature of her project, it would seem difficult for her not to feel these sentiments). Her personal background as the grandchild of former residents of Nanking (her grandparents escaped just weeks before the massacres began) undoubtedly contributes towards her perspective. Here, again, she makes no effort to conceal her position. Indeed, the manner in which she personalizes her account in her introduction is an important and effective "hook" that draws the reader in: "I first learned of the Rape of Nanking when I was a little girl. ... Their voices quivering with outrage, my parents characterized the Great Nanking Massacre, or Nanjing Datusha , as the single most diabolical incident committed by the Japanese. ... Throughout my childhood Nanjing Datusha remained buried in the back of my mind as a metaphor for unspeakable evil" (7, 8).
• Overall, the book is effective, in part because of its sensational and unfathomably horrific subject matter. A strange moment of cognitive dissonance is created, however, by the fact that, as cited above, Chang claims that the massacres occurred before the eyes of the world (the event, she states in her conclusion, was "front-page news across the world ... splashed prominently across the pages of newspapers like the New York Times " [221]), yet she cites only very few of these news articles to back up her claim. (In fact, she cites the same one multiple times: "Japanese Atrocities Marked Fall of Nanking After Chinese Command Fled," The New York Times , December 22, 1937, p. 38 - hardly "front-page news"). Nevertheless, the book is memorable and powerful, and as evidenced by its bestselling status, succeeded in its day in bringing to the world a story previously largely unknown, denied, or ignored. As such, it stands as a success, although the controversy it generated upon publication has slightly diminished its overall legacy (see Historiographic Essays and Evaluating Contradictory Data and Claims ).

• Jump to Headline
• Jump to Navigation
• Jump to Content
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Faculty & Staff

Department of History

• Teaching & Advising

Writing Advice

• Research Links
• Curriculum Vitae
• Dr. Timm's Style Sheet
• Grading Criteria

How to Write a Book Review

• Clarification of "scholarly article"
• Essay-Writing Tutorial
• Note-Taking Advice
• Department of History Essay Guide
• Useful Writing Links
• Links for Graduate Students

I  What is a history book?

Before beginning, think about what an author is trying to accomplish in writing a book of history. This may seems obvious, but if you think about it, it isn't always. The answer will help you to review the book. How does the author go about accomplishing his/her goals? There are several component parts to this question:

1)  goal or intention of book – who is the audience? what is the book setting out to do?

2)  thesis/ argument : not always same as goal – sometimes explicitly historiographical – must be transparent in review  à ask what is author setting out to do?

3)  structure : more than just chapters – on which different levels does the argument take place? i.e. social, political, economic (the most obvious type) – also personal vs. political – this is the author's strategy for making his/her case – does book cover what reader might expect?  – you can mention division of chapters, but don't just summarize them one after the other

4)  theory : not always visible or even conscious – a good review sees it no matter what – theory much more important for some authors than for others – even those that deny they have a theory sometimes do (implicit) – theory is the underlying assumptions that are central to the construction of the argument (theory in historical writing now becoming more and more explicit, more important) – previously most common theory Marxian, now a large variety (Foucault, Habermas, state theory, gender theory, cultural theory etc. etc.)

5)  sources :  evidence  (archival, biographical, newspapers, etc.) – how handled? what kinds of material does the author use? – have to look in footnotes to figure this out (though sometimes author states in introduction or preface) primary vs. secondary sources:   primary sources are documents produced during the period the historian is exploring (anything from government documents, to books, newspapers, diaries, etc.) secondary sources are things written by current historians about the same topic

6)  style: most books well-written, but not always – academia has strange mechanisms of quality control – if style gets in the way of your understanding the argument, then this should be noted – tone also important – appropriate for audience?  (i.e. too arrogant, or too condescending?)

II  What is a book review?

Before writing, ask yourself why book reviews are done – what are they trying to achieve? For which audience?

1)  virtually all book reviews (academic or not) are written to help people determine whether or not they should read the book. A full summary of book not necessary. The reader just needs to know what the book is actually about to make a judgment about whether it is worth reading.

2)  book reviews are commonly used by all scholars to get a handle on fields outside of their own specialties –  so they have some idea about the major arguments going on elsewhere –  don't have time to read it all –  readers of reviews realize that they can't master the content of the book without reading it themselves –  just want to know if the argument the book makes is interesting.... does the book contribute something worthwhile? Will the book be controversial?

III Elements of a Book Review

1)  Put full citation for book at head of the review.

2)  State the author's intentions/audience in the first paragraph of your review. Go back to this point in your conclusion. Was the goal achieved?

3)  Evaluate, make critical comments on work. Note: critical does not have to mean negative. If you've gone through all the elements of the book mentioned above, then you have critically analyzed the book. Important : you must take a stand – do not be shy about making an argument.

4)  In the process of point 3 above, use brief paraphrases or citations from the book. Block quotes (longer than three lines) are not necessary – They take up too much space in a short review.

5)  Compare the book to works by others. Use other reviews to help you find things (and article indexes like "Historical Abstracts" to find reviews). How does this book fit into a social or historiographical trend?

6)  If you can, relate the work to other works by same author. This can be as simple as looking in the card catalogue. Sometimes trends in the personal development of the author are interesting.

7)  Style/format of book: comment on this if noticeably good or noticeably bad.

IV  Check List for a Book Review – Suggestions of things to focus on

* Note: not all of the points below will be relevant for all books!

1)  General Field: – where does the book fit in its general field?

2)  Purpose: why written? Find this in preface, or introduction

3)  Title: sometimes title of the book is in itself interesting. Maybe it doesn't seem to fit the book? If something is glaring here talk about it, otherwise leave it out.

4)  Content s: type of book -- examples:     descriptive – mood creating     narrative – fundamentally chronological organization – events in a sequence of time     expository – thesis, argument – often mainly historiographical question to ask: what are the main ideas, how are they developed/organized?

5)  Authority – how does author prove the thesis?    things to look at here:

a) Author's ideas:     key words, terms concepts defined? internal consistency of ideas? how well developed? b) Area covered:     conscious methodology? oversights? biases? omissions? c) use of sources:     new? how gathered? how reliable? new interpretation of primary sources? new primary sources?     critical examination of all secondary sources? good documentation?

6)  Style: simple? technical? clear? turgid? economical? lucid? wordy?....     does the style chosen fit the intended audience?

7)  Significance of work in field : Note: footnotes may help you here: what new questions does author bring up? has there been further     work in field since book was written? what further work needs to be done on subject?

V  Organization

1)  Beginning:  start with something that catches the reader's attention – can be anecdote from book, could be part of the check list above (i.e. importance of book in field...)

2)  Development – description/evaluation – think carefully about how you will structure your review (i.e. don't follow the author's chapter outline) – when possible explain why author wrote as he/she did (goal, intention)  – sometimes useful to relate one part of above check list to another (i.e. the author's bias affected the    choice of sources in a negative way)

3)  Conclusion – end on a strong note – don't start talking about minor matters here (i.e. typographical errors) – try to end with your assessment of strengths and weaknesses of book – relate this to your opening remarks (did the author meet the stated goals? prove thesis? add to our    knowledge in a significant way?)

VI  Writing - Technical Points

1)  Quotations , when they are from the book you are reviewing, should be followed by the page number in brackets i.e.: (p. 24).

2)  Footnotes , in proper style (See Essay Guide at http://hist.ucalgary.ca/undergraduate ) Should be used for cited arguments from other authors.

VII Writing and Style

Follow general style and writing tips available at web site: hist.ucalgary/atimm/writing-advice

University of Calgary 2500 University Dr. NW Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4

Copyright © 2024 Privacy Policy

About the University

• At a Glance
• Identity & Standards
• Campus Maps
• Careers at the University
• Events at the University
• Departments & Programs
• Undergraduate Studies
• Graduate Studies
• International Studies
• Continuing Studies
• Libraries at the University

Campus Life

• Active Living
• Graduate Students' Association
• Students' Union

Media & Publications

• Media Centre
• U This Week
• University Calendar

Department of History

Guide to writing book reviews.

For our purposes, an ideal book review should:

• start with full bibliographic details of the book discussed in the heading;
• summarise the structure, method and main points of the work, which may include some direct quotes (identified by inverted commas and the relevant page no following in round brackets);
• discuss how the author's arguments fit into other writing on the subject;
• comment on the range of sources used and how they contribute to the argument;
• explain the strengths and weaknesses of the book from your point of view;
• assess whether / how the work will advance relevant debates;
• acknowledge other sources of information in footnotes and a bibliography.

It may be helpful to look at how other people have reviewed relevant books (such as those listed below) in scholarly journals (typically 1-3 years after the publication date), e.g:

• Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte: Literaturbericht; Central European History; English Historical Review; German History; Historische Zeitschrift; History: The Journal of the Historical Association; Journal of Early Modern History; Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Geschichte; Sixteenth Century Journal; Zeitschrift für historische Forschung etc.
• Hardcopies (and in many cases digital versions) of most of these periodicals are held by the UL (search for the respective journal title in the catalogue); an advanced search function for identifying reviews is available in JStor .

Many websites and discussion fora also offer reviews and related materials, see e.g.:

• Guide to reviewers issued by the Humanities and Social Sciences internet platform H-Net (esp. passages on 'effectiveness', 'content', 'evaluation', 'professionalism')
• ' H-German ' (forum for historians of German-speaking Europe; in English)
• ' JStor ' (providing access to reviews in numerous journals)
• ' Reviews in History ' (compiled by the Institute of Historical Research in London)
• ' H-Soz-u-Kult ' (information platform for social and cultural historians; mostly in German)
• Historische Rezensionen online : searchable database of online reviews offered by the German history platform "Clio"
• ' Sehepunkte ' (online review journal specializing in historical works; mostly in German)

Assessment and marking criteria - while similar to regular history essays, particular importance is placed on:

• critical evaluation of source base, methodology, argumentation and conclusions of the book concerned;
• ability to embed a work into the wider historiography of the field;
• congenial structuring and lucid presentation of your review.

A first-class review will excel in all these aspects, an upper second will demonstrate good competence / clarity of expression, while lower marks will reflect limited critique, historiographical coverage and lucidity of argument.

The following is not a definitive list but merely suggestive of books you might like to review. If you have other ideas please discuss them with your seminar tutor:

P. Blickle, The Communal Reformation (1992)

Th. A.Brady Jr, The Politics of the Reformation in Germany (1997)

O. Brunner, Land and Lordship (1995)

Close, C. W., The Negotiated Reformation: Imperial Cities and the Politics of Urban Reform 1525-1550 (2009)

C. Scott Dixon, The Reformation and Rural Society (1994)

H.-J. Goertz, The Anabaptists (1996)

K. Hill, Baptism, Baptism, Brotherhood and Belief in Reformation Germany (2015)

H. A. Oberman, Luther: Man between God and Devil (1990)

R. K. Rittgers, The Reformation of the Keys: Confession in 16thC Germany (2004)

L. Roper, The Holy Household. Women and Morals in Reformation Augsburg (1989)

U. Rublack, Reformation Europe (2005)

R. W. Scribner, Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany (1987)

G. Strauss, Luther's House of Learning (1979)

P. H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire, 1495-1806 (2nd edn, 2011)

The Fuggerei almshouses founded by Jacob Fugger at Augsburg in 1516 [ Picture source ]

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

22 Writing for Other Than Research Analysis

Book reviews.

Writing a book review, a comparative book review, or an historiographical essay (basically, a review of several secondary sources on a single topic) is a good way to practice one of the key features of historical analysis—assessing history scholarship (aka “secondary sources”). Historians must place their own research within the work of others who have approached their topic, and book reviews are helpful for two main reasons. On one hand, writing a book review for a book that covers a topic one is researching forces you to read related scholarship carefully. On the other hand, if you are trying to get a handle on several different scholarly works in a short period of time, reading reviews written by other professional historians of some of those works can be a beneficial shortcut. Moreover, the more well-written book reviews that you read will help you learn not only more about your topic, but also the qualities that make for a good review. In other words, reading and writing book reviews are an important part of developing the skills of historical analysis.

The steps for writing book review start by following the rules of reading historically . Above all, a competent review must recap the main argument, assess how well it holds up and estimate its importance for those who care about its subject. To accomplish these three goals, it helps to know something about the author, to ready critically, and to follow the basic rules of good prose writing.

Good book review writing habits:

• Start by knowing as much as you can about the author

Use your library reference databases—Gale Virtual Reference library, Credo, JSTOR and Google Scholar, for example—to see what else your author has written. A quick Google search in this instance can also show where they teach and provide a link to a curriculum vitae (the scholar’s version of a resume). Use these searches to find out what other books or articles the author has written, and how they identify in terms of sub-discipline expertise (that is, perhaps a specialist in political history or an expert in medieval literature).

• Read for the argument, not for details.

Read the suggestions under “Reading Historically” or from a reputable writing center like that of the University of Iowa (   https://clas.uiowa.edu/history/teaching-and-writing-center/guides/book-review ) before you read your book, so that you approach the text critically. What these hints have in common are strategies for helping you think about what the argument is and how it is supported. You don’t have to have an answer to every question posed by a list like that provided by University of Iowa by any means. But it is essential to look for how the author chose to structure the book, what historical periods s/he sees, what their primary sources are and how they use them, in addition to the all-important question of what the argument is and whether or not it is convincing.

• Draft your review focusing on explaining and assessing the interpretation, not a blow-by-blow summary.

In the introduction reveal the historical period, topic and genre of the book (a political biography of Samuel Adams during the era of the American Revolution OR a socio-economic analysis of the lives of free African American women in antebellum Charleston, South Carolina). In this first paragraph, also lay out the author’s argument and signal your overall impression of the book, which is the thesis of your review. (Example of possible thesis statements for book reviews include that arguing that the book succeeds in revising previous views, or the author proves her thesis for the most part, or the fascinating topic leaves the reader wanting more…)

Subsequent paragraphs focus on the main themes or critiques you’ve identified, not summaries of each chapter’s findings. Conclude with a statement on which sort of audiences might find the book helpful—popular, college students, scholars only—and why.

• Always present your best self in writing, without grammatical or stylistic errors.

After you’ve written your review, being careful to not just outline and summarize what the author said, but instead shaped a review based on critical questioning, read it over. Look out for grammatical and spelling errors, make sure that any points you assert are supported by evidence from the text (with all quotes properly cited and page numbers in parentheses), and be certain that you have a clear introduction and conclusion. Once last time, read it out loud to see if you’ve left any words out and to be sure that it makes sense.

Check out an annotated book review with all its requisite parts: Book Review of Forging Freedom

How History is Made: A Student’s Guide to Reading, Writing, and Thinking in the Discipline Copyright © 2022 by Stephanie Cole; Kimberly Breuer; Scott W. Palmer; and Brandon Blakeslee is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Getting Started
• Books and E-books
• Book Reviews
• Scholarly Articles
• Primary Sources
• African History
• Eastern European & Russian History
• Latin American & Caribbean History
• Research by Time Period (Coming Soon)

When searching for a book review...

• Enclose the primary title of the book in quotation marks (e.g. "Revisiting Prussia's Wars Against Napoleon")
• Consider adding the author's last name to your search (e.g. "A Cultural History of the Atlantic World" AND Thornton)
• Use a Lastname, Firstname format to find reviews on a certain author (e.g. "Smith, John" or "Smith, J")
• Use the database filters to limit your search to book reviews

Help is Available!

Lara nicosia (she/her), humanities librarian.

Lara Nicosia is the liaison librarian for African and African American Studies , History , and Religion & Classics and she is always happy to help!

[email protected]

Chat with Lara

Meet with Lara

(585) 275-9298

Make an Appointment with Me

Do you want to meet with me in-person or online?

What is a Book Review?

Book reviews are important resources for establishing context around historical research. These reviews may offer a summary of a book, but will also usually provide a critical discussion of the book’s main thesis, while comparing the book’s content and conclusions to related works in the field.

Finding book reviews can help you:

• Identify books to incorporate into your research
• Understand how a book fits into the larger scholarly conversation on a topic
• Evaluate the merits and shortcomings of a particular work
• Develop your skills at assessing research material in the field
• Establish the "intellectual climate" at a given point in time

For more information on the value of book reviews as sources, see Jenny L. Presnell, The Information-Literate Historian: A Guide to Research for History Students , 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 45-47.

Selected Journals and Websites with Scholarly Book Reviews

Looking to stay current on what's being published in the field? Need an example of a scholarly book review ? The following selection of journals regularly publish book reviews in each issue:

Databases with Scholarly Book Reviews

Finding book reviews in america: history and life and historical abstracts.

Finding Book Reviews in JSTOR

Finding Book Reviews in Project Muse

Finding Book Reviews in Web of Science

Finding Book Reviews in Humanities and Social Sciences Index Retrospective

Finding Book Reviews in IBR-Online

Printed indexes of book reviews.

• Combined Retrospective Index to Book Reviews in Scholarly Journals, 1886-1974 by Evan Ira Farber Call Number: Rhees Stacks Z1035.A1 C64 Publication Date: 1979-1982
• Combined Retrospective Index to Book Reviews in Humanities Journals, 1802-1974 by Evan Ira Farber; Stanley Schindler Call Number: Rhees Stacks Z1035.A1 .C63 Publication Date: 1982-1984
• An Index to Book Reviews in the Humanities (1960-1990) Call Number: Rhees Stacks Z1035.A1 I38 Publication Date: 1960-1990
• Index to Book Reviews in Historical Periodicals (1972-1977) Call Number: Rhees Stacks ZD3 .I5 Publication Date: 1927-1977
• Book Review Index (1985-2009) by Gale Research Company Call Number: Rhees Stacks Z1035.A1 B71 Publication Date: 1985-2009
• << Previous: Books and E-books
• Next: Scholarly Articles >>
• Last Updated: Feb 1, 2024 11:46 AM
• URL: https://libguides.lib.rochester.edu/hist

How to Write a Book Review

The reviewing of books has been for two hundred years one of the major intellectual activities of the English-speaking world. Publications consisting entirely of book reviews are among the most significant journals on any library shelf, and book reviewers are (at least potentially) among the most honored of intellectual laborers. The publication industry could not function without the reviewing industry. It is therefore incumbent upon you to learn something about the craft of reviewing.

Think first of the function of the review. As reviewer, you are mediating between a book and a person who has not read it, and your purpose is to guide the potential reader to an intelligent decision about whether or not to read it (or even purchase it, in extreme cases!). You must therefore identify and criticize the book, and perform these tasks in such a way as to expose your own standards of judgment. Obviously, the sequence of your argument and the organization of the essay need not fit a prescribed order, it is up to you to develop your own line of approach. Let us look at each of these stipulations in some detail:

• Identify the book. There are several components to this process. First, you specify the argument or thesis of the book. There may be more than one thesis to a book; often there are one or two main theses supported by minor arguments. You do not tell what the book is about (e.e. this book is about Elizabethan government) but rather what the books says (e.g. the author argues that Parliament was not an important element of Elizabethan government). This step in identification is rather like a book report, but here all similarity between a report and a review ceases. Secondly, you identify the kind of book it is: is it a narrative, is it topical and analytical, is it deductive and theoretical, etc.? Sometimes we call this identifying the explanatory framework of a book. Thirdly, you look at the evidence that supports the book. Fourthly, you place the book in the context of the other books you have read in the same general area. There may be other elements of identification that are important to a particular book in a particular field, but these four will do for most.
• Criticize the book. Criticism means simply the application of standards. It is entirely possible that a reviewer could apply his standards and find nothing negative to say about a book; being critical does not always entail being negative. In fact, the process of judgment usually reveals flaws in a work; authors are no less fallible than other humans, and reviewers like to show that they have very high standards; it is nevertheless useful to recognize that judgment can cut both ways. Critical appraisal does not require that one be an authority in the field. Obviously, your job would be easier if you were professionally familiar with the subject, but everyone reads books all the time in areas where he is relatively uninformed, and the obligation to be critical never ceases.

Criticism is sometimes divided into internal and external criticism. Internal criticism asks questions that can be answered without reference to anything but the book itself. Is the evidence appropriate? Is the research exhaustive? Is the argument logical? Do the conclusions follow from the evidence? Is the argument intelligible? Is it gracefully written? What are the author’s values and assumptions, explicit or implicit? External criticism asks questions derived from the consideration of the field in which the book falls. How does the book stack up with recent publication? Does the book employ any startling new method or theory? Is it a contribution to a controversy? Is it part of an identifiable school of historical interpretation? Does it advance our knowledge of the subject in any way?

Reading a book critically brings you face to face with the distinction between fact and interpretation. The distinction is not an easy one to make, partly because many historical “facts” are actually generalizations or interpretations that have attained the status of facts because historians no longer dispute them. The great Reform Bill became law in 1832: that is an undoubted fact. The passage of the great Reform Bill headed off a potentially revolutionary situation by expanding the electorate: that is an interpretation that has attained the status of act. The great Reform Bill was a carefully engineered measure that changed the workings of Parliament and government hardly at all and does not deserve the attention it has been given: that clearly is a matter of interpretation. It is particularly important to recognize this last category of statements and demand of the author an adequate demonstration of the points he makes in support of them.

You will notice that each of these questions will require you to develop some standard by which to judge the book. Answering a question about appropriate evidence implies that you know what appropriate evidence is. It will not do simply to assert that an author uses inappropriate evidence — you will have to demonstrate that he does, in part so that the reviewer can see what you consider to be appropriate evidence. To be effective, criticism must reveal the critic, and the reader of the review must see that the standards the reviewer is applying are appropriate to his own purpose. The informed personal response of the reviewer is therefore germane. We do not want to hear merely that the reviewer likes the book (or does not like it), or that the book is good (or bad) — simple expressions of opinion are only a waste of precious time, space, and effort. But if a reviewer examines his own response to the book, inquires of himself carefully and searchingly why he likes (or does not like) the book, then both his response and legitimation of it become matters of interest to the reader of the review. Recognize that a review is a personal statement, accept your obligation to make it an informed personal statement, and you will be well launched on the enterprise.

Finally, a word about tone. Nothing is more infuriating to read than a casual and airy dismissal of a book by a sophomore whose best effort at writing has been a 15-page term paper. There are bad books, books that deserve rough treatment from critics, but they can be given the treatment they deserve in the course of a serious and even respectful review. And even in the worst of books there is generally something good. Charity, humility, and the assumption that where you and another person differ you are at least as likely to be wrong as he is — these are attributes to be cherished in all conversation, and not least in the reviewing of books. A respectful review may be more than you think you owe some books, but it is never more than you owe yourself.

– Eleanor Zelliot

University Libraries

• Research Guides
• Blackboard Learn
• Interlibrary Loan
• Study Rooms
• University of Arkansas

HIST 5023: Historical Methods

• Book Reviews
• Reference Sources
• Finding Books
• Finding Articles
• Theses and Dissertations
• Published Books
• Periodicals and Magazines
• Microfilm Collections
• Government Documents
• Digital Collections
• Manuscripts and Archives
• Citing Primary Records from Archives
• Other Libraries
• Managing Your Sources

Historiography Tip

Literature Reviews or Review Essays can be paydirt for the historian. These journal articles often consist of a historiographci review of a number of works on a similar topic or theme.  

Try adding phrases such as "review essay" or "historiographical essay" to your search terms. Some example searches:

• slavery and "review essay" in America: History and Life
• historiograph* and folklore in JSTOR

Find Book Reviews

Many of our article databases have a way to limit your search to book reviews, even if they are not llisted below.

Writing Book Reviews

• << Previous: Finding Books
• Next: Finding Articles >>
• Last Updated: Jan 31, 2024 1:26 PM
• URL: https://uark.libguides.com/HistMethods
• See us on Instagram
• Follow us on Twitter
• Phone: 479-575-4104

Book Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will help you write a book review, a report or essay that offers a critical perspective on a text. It offers a process and suggests some strategies for writing book reviews.

What is a review?

A review is a critical evaluation of a text, event, object, or phenomenon. Reviews can consider books, articles, entire genres or fields of literature, architecture, art, fashion, restaurants, policies, exhibitions, performances, and many other forms. This handout will focus on book reviews. For a similar assignment, see our handout on literature reviews .

Above all, a review makes an argument. The most important element of a review is that it is a commentary, not merely a summary. It allows you to enter into dialogue and discussion with the work’s creator and with other audiences. You can offer agreement or disagreement and identify where you find the work exemplary or deficient in its knowledge, judgments, or organization. You should clearly state your opinion of the work in question, and that statement will probably resemble other types of academic writing, with a thesis statement, supporting body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Typically, reviews are brief. In newspapers and academic journals, they rarely exceed 1000 words, although you may encounter lengthier assignments and extended commentaries. In either case, reviews need to be succinct. While they vary in tone, subject, and style, they share some common features:

• First, a review gives the reader a concise summary of the content. This includes a relevant description of the topic as well as its overall perspective, argument, or purpose.
• Second, and more importantly, a review offers a critical assessment of the content. This involves your reactions to the work under review: what strikes you as noteworthy, whether or not it was effective or persuasive, and how it enhanced your understanding of the issues at hand.
• Finally, in addition to analyzing the work, a review often suggests whether or not the audience would appreciate it.

Becoming an expert reviewer: three short examples

Reviewing can be a daunting task. Someone has asked for your opinion about something that you may feel unqualified to evaluate. Who are you to criticize Toni Morrison’s new book if you’ve never written a novel yourself, much less won a Nobel Prize? The point is that someone—a professor, a journal editor, peers in a study group—wants to know what you think about a particular work. You may not be (or feel like) an expert, but you need to pretend to be one for your particular audience. Nobody expects you to be the intellectual equal of the work’s creator, but your careful observations can provide you with the raw material to make reasoned judgments. Tactfully voicing agreement and disagreement, praise and criticism, is a valuable, challenging skill, and like many forms of writing, reviews require you to provide concrete evidence for your assertions.

Consider the following brief book review written for a history course on medieval Europe by a student who is fascinated with beer:

Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600, investigates how women used to brew and sell the majority of ale drunk in England. Historically, ale and beer (not milk, wine, or water) were important elements of the English diet. Ale brewing was low-skill and low status labor that was complimentary to women’s domestic responsibilities. In the early fifteenth century, brewers began to make ale with hops, and they called this new drink “beer.” This technique allowed brewers to produce their beverages at a lower cost and to sell it more easily, although women generally stopped brewing once the business became more profitable.

The student describes the subject of the book and provides an accurate summary of its contents. But the reader does not learn some key information expected from a review: the author’s argument, the student’s appraisal of the book and its argument, and whether or not the student would recommend the book. As a critical assessment, a book review should focus on opinions, not facts and details. Summary should be kept to a minimum, and specific details should serve to illustrate arguments.

Now consider a review of the same book written by a slightly more opinionated student:

Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 was a colossal disappointment. I wanted to know about the rituals surrounding drinking in medieval England: the songs, the games, the parties. Bennett provided none of that information. I liked how the book showed ale and beer brewing as an economic activity, but the reader gets lost in the details of prices and wages. I was more interested in the private lives of the women brewsters. The book was divided into eight long chapters, and I can’t imagine why anyone would ever want to read it.

There’s no shortage of judgments in this review! But the student does not display a working knowledge of the book’s argument. The reader has a sense of what the student expected of the book, but no sense of what the author herself set out to prove. Although the student gives several reasons for the negative review, those examples do not clearly relate to each other as part of an overall evaluation—in other words, in support of a specific thesis. This review is indeed an assessment, but not a critical one.

Here is one final review of the same book:

One of feminism’s paradoxes—one that challenges many of its optimistic histories—is how patriarchy remains persistent over time. While Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 recognizes medieval women as historical actors through their ale brewing, it also shows that female agency had its limits with the advent of beer. I had assumed that those limits were religious and political, but Bennett shows how a “patriarchal equilibrium” shut women out of economic life as well. Her analysis of women’s wages in ale and beer production proves that a change in women’s work does not equate to a change in working women’s status. Contemporary feminists and historians alike should read Bennett’s book and think twice when they crack open their next brewsky.

This student’s review avoids the problems of the previous two examples. It combines balanced opinion and concrete example, a critical assessment based on an explicitly stated rationale, and a recommendation to a potential audience. The reader gets a sense of what the book’s author intended to demonstrate. Moreover, the student refers to an argument about feminist history in general that places the book in a specific genre and that reaches out to a general audience. The example of analyzing wages illustrates an argument, the analysis engages significant intellectual debates, and the reasons for the overall positive review are plainly visible. The review offers criteria, opinions, and support with which the reader can agree or disagree.

Developing an assessment: before you write

There is no definitive method to writing a review, although some critical thinking about the work at hand is necessary before you actually begin writing. Thus, writing a review is a two-step process: developing an argument about the work under consideration, and making that argument as you write an organized and well-supported draft. See our handout on argument .

What follows is a series of questions to focus your thinking as you dig into the work at hand. While the questions specifically consider book reviews, you can easily transpose them to an analysis of performances, exhibitions, and other review subjects. Don’t feel obligated to address each of the questions; some will be more relevant than others to the book in question.

• What is the thesis—or main argument—of the book? If the author wanted you to get one idea from the book, what would it be? How does it compare or contrast to the world you know? What has the book accomplished?
• What exactly is the subject or topic of the book? Does the author cover the subject adequately? Does the author cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced fashion? What is the approach to the subject (topical, analytical, chronological, descriptive)?
• How does the author support their argument? What evidence do they use to prove their point? Do you find that evidence convincing? Why or why not? Does any of the author’s information (or conclusions) conflict with other books you’ve read, courses you’ve taken or just previous assumptions you had of the subject?
• How does the author structure their argument? What are the parts that make up the whole? Does the argument make sense? Does it persuade you? Why or why not?
• How has this book helped you understand the subject? Would you recommend the book to your reader?

Beyond the internal workings of the book, you may also consider some information about the author and the circumstances of the text’s production:

• Who is the author? Nationality, political persuasion, training, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details about how a work takes shape. Does it matter, for example, that the biographer was the subject’s best friend? What difference would it make if the author participated in the events they write about?
• What is the book’s genre? Out of what field does it emerge? Does it conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or literary standard on which to base your evaluations. If you are reviewing the first book ever written on the subject, it will be important for your readers to know. Keep in mind, though, that naming “firsts”—alongside naming “bests” and “onlys”—can be a risky business unless you’re absolutely certain.

Writing the review

Once you have made your observations and assessments of the work under review, carefully survey your notes and attempt to unify your impressions into a statement that will describe the purpose or thesis of your review. Check out our handout on thesis statements . Then, outline the arguments that support your thesis.

Your arguments should develop the thesis in a logical manner. That logic, unlike more standard academic writing, may initially emphasize the author’s argument while you develop your own in the course of the review. The relative emphasis depends on the nature of the review: if readers may be more interested in the work itself, you may want to make the work and the author more prominent; if you want the review to be about your perspective and opinions, then you may structure the review to privilege your observations over (but never separate from) those of the work under review. What follows is just one of many ways to organize a review.

Introduction

Since most reviews are brief, many writers begin with a catchy quip or anecdote that succinctly delivers their argument. But you can introduce your review differently depending on the argument and audience. The Writing Center’s handout on introductions can help you find an approach that works. In general, you should include:

• The name of the author and the book title and the main theme.
• Relevant details about who the author is and where they stand in the genre or field of inquiry. You could also link the title to the subject to show how the title explains the subject matter.
• The context of the book and/or your review. Placing your review in a framework that makes sense to your audience alerts readers to your “take” on the book. Perhaps you want to situate a book about the Cuban revolution in the context of Cold War rivalries between the United States and the Soviet Union. Another reviewer might want to consider the book in the framework of Latin American social movements. Your choice of context informs your argument.
• The thesis of the book. If you are reviewing fiction, this may be difficult since novels, plays, and short stories rarely have explicit arguments. But identifying the book’s particular novelty, angle, or originality allows you to show what specific contribution the piece is trying to make.
• Your thesis about the book.

Summary of content

This should be brief, as analysis takes priority. In the course of making your assessment, you’ll hopefully be backing up your assertions with concrete evidence from the book, so some summary will be dispersed throughout other parts of the review.

The necessary amount of summary also depends on your audience. Graduate students, beware! If you are writing book reviews for colleagues—to prepare for comprehensive exams, for example—you may want to devote more attention to summarizing the book’s contents. If, on the other hand, your audience has already read the book—such as a class assignment on the same work—you may have more liberty to explore more subtle points and to emphasize your own argument. See our handout on summary for more tips.

Analysis and evaluation of the book

Your analysis and evaluation should be organized into paragraphs that deal with single aspects of your argument. This arrangement can be challenging when your purpose is to consider the book as a whole, but it can help you differentiate elements of your criticism and pair assertions with evidence more clearly. You do not necessarily need to work chronologically through the book as you discuss it. Given the argument you want to make, you can organize your paragraphs more usefully by themes, methods, or other elements of the book. If you find it useful to include comparisons to other books, keep them brief so that the book under review remains in the spotlight. Avoid excessive quotation and give a specific page reference in parentheses when you do quote. Remember that you can state many of the author’s points in your own words.

Sum up or restate your thesis or make the final judgment regarding the book. You should not introduce new evidence for your argument in the conclusion. You can, however, introduce new ideas that go beyond the book if they extend the logic of your own thesis. This paragraph needs to balance the book’s strengths and weaknesses in order to unify your evaluation. Did the body of your review have three negative paragraphs and one favorable one? What do they all add up to? The Writing Center’s handout on conclusions can help you make a final assessment.

Finally, a few general considerations:

• Review the book in front of you, not the book you wish the author had written. You can and should point out shortcomings or failures, but don’t criticize the book for not being something it was never intended to be.
• With any luck, the author of the book worked hard to find the right words to express her ideas. You should attempt to do the same. Precise language allows you to control the tone of your review.
• Never hesitate to challenge an assumption, approach, or argument. Be sure, however, to cite specific examples to back up your assertions carefully.
• Try to present a balanced argument about the value of the book for its audience. You’re entitled—and sometimes obligated—to voice strong agreement or disagreement. But keep in mind that a bad book takes as long to write as a good one, and every author deserves fair treatment. Harsh judgments are difficult to prove and can give readers the sense that you were unfair in your assessment.
• A great place to learn about book reviews is to look at examples. The New York Times Sunday Book Review and The New York Review of Books can show you how professional writers review books.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Drewry, John. 1974. Writing Book Reviews. Boston: Greenwood Press.

Hoge, James. 1987. Literary Reviewing. Charlottesville: University Virginia of Press.

Sova, Dawn, and Harry Teitelbaum. 2002. How to Write Book Reports , 4th ed. Lawrenceville, NY: Thomson/Arco.

Walford, A.J. 1986. Reviews and Reviewing: A Guide. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

HIST495 Introduction to Historical Interpretation (History Honors)

• Getting Started
• Consulting Reference Materials for Overview/Background Information
• Finding Primary Sources
• Finding Secondary Sources (Books and Articles)
• Locating Book Reviews

Guidelines and Examples

3 simple steps to get your literature review done (nus libraries).

• Creating an Annotated Bibliography
• Strategies for Building Your Bibliography
• Special Collections and Archives Outside of the US
• Rose Library, Emory University and Other Archives Within Georgia
• Writing & Citing
• Library Assignments
• Introduction to Literature Reviews (UNC)
• Literature Review Guidelines (Univ. of Mary Washington)
• Organizing Research for Arts and Humanities Papers and Theses: Writing A Literature Review
• Write a Literature Review (JHU)
• Example from the University of Mary Washington

• << Previous: Locating Book Reviews
• Next: Creating an Annotated Bibliography >>
• Last Updated: Mar 27, 2024 11:50 AM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.emory.edu/main/histhonors

• Member Login

Reviews of some 20,000+ historical fiction books

The Unearthed

By Lenny Bartulin - Published 2023

Literary Mystery/Crime

Old bones – ‘mossed and soft’ – are discovered in the wilderness near Queenstown. Forensic scientist Antonia Kovacs arrives from Hobart to investigate them, also ... Read Review

The American Queen

By Vanessa Miller - Published 2024

1865: Enslaved twenty-four-year-old Louella yearns for freedom. The selling of her mother which wrenched her family apart, the horrific lynching of her father, and ... Read Review

The Sleeping Beauties

By Lucy Ashe - Published 2024

Now the war’s over, Rosamund Caradon can take the evacuated children in her care back to their London homes. She’s accompanied ... Read Review

Pelican Girls

By Julia Malye - Published 2024

Pelican Girls tells a vivid and potent story of women first discarded by society then sent as brides to shore up the floundering ... Read Review

By Holly Payne - Published 2023

In 1256, a woman gives birth in a monastery deep in the Rila mountains. Ivan, a young friar, is the only witness. Roses do ... Read Review

The Bone Hunters

By Joanne Burn - Published 2024

Lyme Regis, 1824. Ada Winters, 24, lives with mum Edith in a cottage ‘upon the beach’, so close to the sea that high tides almost ... Read Review

Hardy Women: Mother, Sisters, Wives, Muses

By Paula Byrne - Published 2024

In his day, Thomas Hardy was renowned for the psychological insight he brought to his female characters. As Byrne relates, Hardy the man ... Read Review

By Kelly Stone Gamble - Published 2023

1930s Nevada. Sixteen-year-old Helen Carter and her father migrate from Kansas to Ragtown, a shanty community near Las Vegas, joining thousands of other ... Read Review

The Lionheart’s Bride (Berengaria of Navarre Medieval Trilogy)

By Austin Hernon - Published 2023

Adventure Biographical Fiction

This 12th-century historical adventure follows Princess Berengaria on her quest to catch up with and marry Richard I, King of England, as he ... Read Review

Wolves around the Throne (Wolves of Odin Book 4)

By S.J.A. Turney - Published 2023

This is the fourth in Simon Turney’s Wolves of Odin Viking series but could easily be read as a standalone. In it ... Read Review

About Book Reviews

Our print magazine for members The Historical Novels Review has published reviews of 20,000+ historical fiction books.

In This Section

About our reviews and reviewers

Submit a Book for Review

Filter Reviews by...

• Browse by Genre
• Browse by Author
• Browse by Period
• Browse by Century
• Browse by Publisher
• Browse by Magazine

Share Book Reviews

Latest articles

Dive deeper into your favourite books, eras and themes:

Here are six of our latest Editor’s Choices:

Browse articles by tag

Browse articles by author, browse reviews by genre, browse reviews by period, browse reviews by century, browse reviews by publisher, browse reviews by magazine., browse members by letter, search members..

• Search by display name *

Join Discovery, the new community for book lovers

Trust book recommendations from real people, not robots 🤓

Blog – Posted on Thursday, Nov 11

The only book review templates you'll ever need.

Whether you’re trying to become a book reviewer , writing a book report for school, or analyzing a book, it’s nice to follow a book review template to make sure that your thoughts are clearly presented. 

A quality template provides guidance to keep your mind sharp and your thoughts organized so that you can write the best book review possible. On Reedsy Discovery , we read and share a lot of book reviews, which helps us develop quite a clear idea what makes up a good one. With that in mind, we’ve put together some trustworthy book review templates that you can download, along with a quick run-through of all the parts that make up an outstanding review — all in this post! 

Pro-tip : But wait! How are you sure if you should become a book reviewer in the first place? If you're on the fence, or curious about your match with a book reviewing career, take our quick quiz:

Should you become a book reviewer?

Find out the answer. Takes 30 seconds!

Book review templates for every type of review

With the rapid growth of the book community on Instagram, Youtube, and even TikTok, the world of book commentary has evolved far beyond your classic review. There are now many ways you can structure a book review. Some popular formats include:

• Book reports — often done for school assignments; 
• Commentary articles — think in-depth reviews in magazines and newspapers; 
• Book blog reviews — short personal essays about the book; and
• Instagram reviews — one or two-paragraph reviews captioned under a nice photo. 

But while the text in all these review styles can be organized in different ways, there are certain boxes that all good book reviews tick. So, instead of giving you various templates to use for different occasions, we’ve condensed it down to just two book review templates (one for fiction and one for nonfiction) that can guide your thoughts and help you nail just about any review. 

⭐ Download our free fiction book review template  

⭐ Download our free nonfiction book review template  

All you need to do is answer the questions in the template regarding the book you’re reading and you’ve got the content of your review covered. Once that’s done, you can easily put this content into its appropriate format. 

Now, if you’re curious about what constitutes a good book review template, we’ll explain it in the following section! 

Elements of a book review template

Say you want to build your own book review template, or you want to customize our templates — here are the elements you’ll want to consider. 

We’ve divided our breakdown of the elements into two categories: the essentials and the fun additions that’ll add some color to your book reviews.

What are the three main parts of a book review?

We covered this in detail (with the help of some stellar examples) in our post on how to write a book review , but basically, these are the three crucial elements you should know: 

The summary covers the premise of the book and its main theme, so readers are able to understand what you’re referring to in the rest of your review. This means that, if a person hasn’t read the book, they can go through the summary to get a quick idea of what it’s about. (As such, there should be no spoilers!) 

The analysis is where, if it’s a fiction book, you talk more about the book, its plot, theme, and characters. If it’s nonfiction, you have to consider whether the book effectively achieves what it set out to do. 

The recommendation is where your personal opinion comes in the strongest, and you give a verdict as to who you think might enjoy this book. 

You can choose to be brief or detailed, depending on the kind of review you’re writing, but you should always aim to cover these three points. If you’re needing some inspiration, check out these 17 book review examples as seen in magazines, blogs, and review communities like Reedsy Discovery for a little variation. 

Which review community should you join?

Find out which review community is best for your style. Takes 30 seconds!

Which additional details can you include?

Once you’ve nailed down the basics, you can jazz things up a little and add some personal flavor to your book review by considering some of these elements:

• A star-rating (the default is five stars but you can create your own scales); 
• A bullet-point pros and cons list; 
• Your favorite quotation from the book; 
• Commentary on the format you read (i.e., ebook, print, or audiobook);
• Fun facts about the book or author; 
• Other titles you think are similar.

This is where you can really be creative and tailor your review to suit your purpose and audience. A formal review written for a magazine, for instance, will likely benefit from contextual information about the author and the book, along with some comment on how that might have affected the reading (or even writing) process.

Meanwhile, if you’re reviewing a book on social media, you might find bullet points more effective at capturing the fleeting attention of Internet users. You can also make videos, take creative pictures, or even add your own illustrations for more personal touches. The floor is yours at this point, so go ahead and take the spotlight! 

That said, we hope that our templates can provide you with a strong foundation for even your most adventurous reviews. And if you’re interested in writing editorial reviews for up-and-coming indie titles, register as a reviewer on Reedsy Discovery !

Continue reading

More posts from across the blog.

Magical Realism 101: Definition and 15 Essential Classics

Magical realism is a literary style that weaves threads of fantasy into a depiction of everyday life. Its heroes aren’t fairies or sorcerers, they’re ordinary peop...

10 Fantastic World War II Books by Female Authors

This post was contributed by Reedsy Discover reviewer Lou Hurrell. Come September it will be 80 years...

The 34 Best Book Subscription Boxes of 2024

These book subscription boxes deliver hand-picked titles to your doorstep each month, and you don't have to lift a finger! What are you waiting for?

Heard about Reedsy Discovery?

Trust real people, not robots, to give you book recommendations.

Or sign up with an

Or sign up with your social account

• Submit your book
• Reviewer directory

Writing a book review?

Use our free book review template to make sure you don't leave anything out.

The UK National Charity for History

Password Sign In

Become a Member | Register for free

Book Reviews

The Historian  is the publication for general members of the HA. One of its regular features is book reviews. The reviews cover everything from the popular new history books to some of the more obscure, specialist books that make you proud that publishers still value history books. Find out what is hot on the history shelves here.

J.L. Petit: Britain’s Lost Pre-Impressionist

J.L. Petit: Britain’s Lost Pre-Impressionist, Philip Modiano, RPS Publications, 122p. 2022, £20. ISBN 978-1-9164931-2-4.  Philip Modiano’s championing of prolific Victorian water-colourist and pioneering campaigner for the preservation of ancient buildings, Reverend John Louis Petit [1801-1868], continues to raise the profile of this neglected Staffordshire artist. His new book follows on...

Greek Secrets Revealed: Hidden Scottish History Uncovered Book 1 – Edinburgh

Greek Secrets Revealed: Hidden Scottish History Uncovered Book 1 – Edinburgh, Ian McHaffie, self-published, 2022, 200p, £12-00 [including p+p]. ISBN 978-0-9546681-7-4. Copies can be ordered via [email protected] Professor W. G. Hoskins once commented that one of the principal joys of local history was its inter-disciplinary nature. He could see how...

Working-class Lives in Edwardian Harrogate

Working-class Lives in Edwardian Harrogate, Paul Jennings, Palatine Books, 2022, 264p, £14.99. ISBN 978-1-910837-37-5. Instinctively most people would identify Harrogate in modern times as a rather well-built and prosperous tourist centre. Of course, it is more than that because the real impetus to its history was its emergence as a...

Cemeteries and Graveyards

Cemeteries and Graveyards, Celia Heritage, Pen and Sword, 2022, 236p, £15.99. ISBN 978 1 52670 237 1. This is a most thorough and engaging book. Its focus is specifically the widest context of burials in England and Wales. As a handbook to be used by anyone wanting to understand burial...

Tracing Your Family History with the Whole Family

Tracing Your Family History with the Whole Family: A Family Research Adventure for All Ages, Robin C. McConnell, Pen and Sword, 2022, 151p, £14.99. ISBN 9781399013888. This is a very well-intentioned book, based on the exceptionally strong idea of inter-generational collaboration. Robin McConnell is very persuasive in his proposition that...

The Great Passion

The Great Passion, James Runcie, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2022, 260p, £16.99. ISBN 978-1-4088-8551-2. One of my academic mentors, Professor Alan Everitt, believed that novels set in carefully researched setting could be a very reliable contemporary source for historians. My experience confirms his judgement: Jerome K. Jerome’s Three Men in a Boat...

S.E.19: My London Life, 1937-63

S.E.19: My London Life, 1937-63, Roger Ward, Over Bite Press, 2022, 222p, £10-00. ISBN 978-1-9­­15292-39-1. This is a deeply personal book, written by Professor Roger Ward to describe and explain his early life in Upper Norwood for his children. It is reminiscent of Roy Hattersley’s A Yorkshire Boyhood [1983] and...

Clarke, Petit and St Mark’s: A 19th Century journey on the Isle of Man

Clarke, Petit and St Mark’s: A 19th Century journey on the Isle of Man, Philip Modiano, RPS Publications, 2022, 44p., £9.00 [plus postage]. ISBN 9781916493117. Contact via [email protected] In this extraordinary booklet Philip Modiano explains the architectural and personal relationship built up between the notable water-colourist, the Revd John Louis Petit,...

London’s Railway Stations

London’s Railway Stations, Oliver Green, Shire Publications, 2022, 64p, £9.99. ISBN 978 1 78442 505 0  Genuinely authentic Londoners will be familiar with all thirteen of its railway terminuses and this book, by a recognised expert on London’s railway provision, provides an excellent introduction to the topic which will now...

The Grand Tour

The Grand Tour, Mike Rendell, Shire Publications, 2022, 64p, £8-99. ISBN 978-1-78402-695-4.  ‘The Grand Tour’ became a major rite of passage for many young aristocrats and was at its peak in the mid-18th century, when Europe experienced a rare three decades of relative peace. It was inspired by Catholic priest and...

Ten Cities that Led the World: From Ancient Metropolis to Modern Megacity

Ten Cities that Led the World: From Ancient Metropolis to Modern Megacity, Paul Strathern, Hodder and Stoughton, 2022, 260p, £25-00. ISBN 978-1-529-35934-2. This book has such a level of coherence and insight that it will be read in a single session. Any book that manages to encompass the notion of...

Uncommon Courage: The Yachtsmen Volunteers of World War II

Uncommon Courage: The Yachtsmen Volunteers of World War II, Julia Jones, Adlard Coles, 2022, 310p, £20-00. ISBN 978-1-4729-87105 Historians are frequently obsessed with defining what constitutes a primary source, a source which will be guaranteed to yield reliable data. What Julia Jones has done is to produce a book which...

Victorian Stained Glass

Victorian Stained Glass, Trevor Yorke, Shire Publications, 20222, 64p, £8-99. ISBN 978-1-78442-483-1 This is an extraordinarily helpful introduction to the art and manufacture of stained glass. Its extra attraction is that it offers much more than the title suggests. Trevor Yorke provides a very succinct but clear explanation of the...

Wingfield: Suffolk’s Forgotten Castle

Wingfield: Suffolk’s Forgotten Castle, Elaine Murphy, Poppyland Publishing, 2021, 396pp., £19.95. ISBN 978-1-909796-88-1.  Grade 1 listed Wingfield Manor, ancestral home of the Wingfield family was inherited by Michael de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, in 1385, less than four weeks after his marriage to Katherine Wingfield, sole heir of her...

How Norwich Fought Against the Plague: Lessons from the Past

How Norwich Fought Against the Plague: Lessons from the Past, Frank Meeres, Poppyland Publishing, 2021, 138p, £9.95. ISBN 9781909796898 The importance of this book has already been acknowledged at a regional level by having been awarded the 2021 East Anglia Book Award for History and Tradition. What Frank Meeres has...

Europe’s 100 Best Cathedrals

Europe’s 100 Best Cathedrals, Simon Jenkins, Penguin Books Ltd, 2021, 360pp., £30, ISBN: 978-0-241452-63-9. Ever leafed through one of the visitor books found in many of our churches and read the comments? ‘Very peaceful’, ‘Lovely’, ‘Beautiful’, and similar well-meaning but bland observations are typical. Coming up with something more meaningful isn’t...

The Historic Sporting Landscape

The Historic Sporting Landscape, Trevor James, Lichfield Press, 2021, 114p, £10-00. ISBN 978-0-905985 978  Having in a recent book effectively surveyed England’s saintly landscape, Trevor James has now turned his attention to the rather less saintly sporting landscape. He believes implicitly that England has been and is ‘the most enthusiastically...

Beleaguered and Besieged: A Year in a Place of Rocks

Beleaguered and Besieged: A Year in a Place of Rocks, Hugh Gault, Gretton Books, 2021, 124p, £10-00. ISBN 978-1-999851-9-5 Long-standing contributor to The Historian Hugh Gault has developed a novel approach to the study of the siege of Mafeking. The novelty occurs in two forms. He has created a diary...

The Radical Potter: Josiah Wedgwood and the Transformation of Britain

The Radical Potter: Josiah Wedgwood and the Transformation of Britain, Tristram Hunt, Allen Lane, 2021, 323pp., £25. ISBN 978-0-24128-789-7.  As MP for Stoke-on-Trent, Tristram Hunt was prominent in the 2014 fight to save the Wedgwood Museum at Barlaston and prevent its contents going to auction. As director of the Victoria...

Welfare in Widecombe 1700-1900: An illustrated journey through local archives

Welfare in Widecombe 1700-1900: An illustrated journey through local archives, Roger Claxton, Widecombe History Group, 2019, 194p, £17-00 [plus postage and packing], ISBN 978-1-9162849-0-6. More details from www.widecombe-in-the-moor.com/welfare/ Meticulous research has enabled Roger Claxton to produce his Welfare in Widecombe 1700-1900, with its longer and highly significant title of an...

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• AHR Interview
• History Unclassified
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Join the AHR Community
• About The American Historical Review
• About the American Historical Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Reviews Guide

Reviewing books and other forms of scholarship—including films, public history sites and museums, document collections, digital projects, podcasts, and many other genres—is a primary responsibility of the  American Historical Review .

The  AHR  carefully selects reviewers, ensuring that they have demonstrated sufficient expertise in the relevant field and guarding carefully against potential conflicts of interest. Scholars who have already reviewed a work for another journal should not then agree to review it for the  AHR . Reviewers and potential reviewers should maintain the spirit of objectivity inherent in the review process. They should avoid making public statements, commentaries, or electronic media posts/discussions about a book they have agreed to review. Membership in the American Historical Association is neither a requirement for nor a guarantee of selection as a reviewer. We do not assign book reviews to scholars at their own suggestion; invitations to review are based on independent staff judgments about the appropriate match between material and reviewer. If you meet the above criteria and want to be added to our large and growing database of reviewers, please send a CV for consideration to [email protected] .

As of 2023, the  AHR  no longer accepts print copies of books for review. Books reviewed in the  AHR  are selected from seasonal publisher catalogs. As an author, if you would like your book to be under consideration, please ensure your publisher has sent their latest catalog to  [email protected] . Books listed in the catalog will be considered by our book review editors.

The  AHR  seeks to review genres of scholarship that make historical knowledge available to the discipline at large and the general public. We invite proposals for these kinds of reviews. All reviews are assigned in consultation with the Board of Editors and Associate Review Editors. Please note that suggesting a review does not guarantee that you will be chosen as the reviewer if a review is commissioned.

Such reviews can include, but are not limited to:

• Films 
• Public History projects
• Documentaries
• Video games
• Graphic histories
• Digital History
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1937-5239
• Print ISSN 0002-8762
• Copyright © 2024 The American Historical Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

On the Potential of Book Reviews

Building a More Inclusive and Cohesive Community

Gary G. Gibbs, Karen F. Harris, Whitney A. M. Leeson, and James M. Ogier | Jan 29, 2024

N umerous reasons motivate academics to review books for professional journals, perhaps as many reasons as there are reviewers.

The Point Bonita Lighthouse (1855) once helped ships’ crews steer clear of the shore prior to the development of computerized navigational systems. Technology changes, but the need for reliable direction remains—in all areas of life. Karen F. Harris

The process keeps individuals contributing to a larger discourse, maintains professional development, and fosters a coherent, inclusive academic culture. And yet reviewers are geographically, professionally, politically, and generationally diverse, meaning they engage in academic criticism with different perspectives. But with the myriad tasks that historians face at all levels of their careers, book reviews are often seen as a burden rather than an opportunity. Book reviews are essential components of historical inquiry, and the discipline, professional organizations, and institutions of higher education must recognize them as the essential publishing standard—as the one task most likely achievable by the greatest number of historians.

Book reviews express all the tools of historical analysis, and they are an important genre of publication. Book reviewing provides professors and graduate students the opportunity to engage with new scholarship, contribute to ongoing conversations and debates in the field, and demonstrate specialized expertise. Published book reviews form a point in the triangular relationship among reviewers, authors, and editors that offers scholars the opportunity to shape, challenge, and influence the production and reception of new arguments. The book reviewer is a counterpart to anonymous readers employed by the press as part of the publication process. Therefore, book reviews should be referenced in any discussion addressing the scope and inclusivity of the process of peer-reviewing books.

Reviewing a book requires numerous skills central to historical methods. Critiquing and criticizing research are skills cultivated in graduate school and central to historical inquiry. Other methods involved in book reviewing are inherent in pedagogy and indispensable in higher education. Evaluating sources and methods, assessing the logic inherent in an argument, and judging the quality of writing all benefit from constant practice and refinement. An academic review provides a sense of where a book fits into a field, which is also a task required in college-level courses.

The book reviewer is a counterpart to anonymous readers employed by the press as part of the publication process.

Two recent events influenced the academic pursuit of reviewing books. First, the economic crisis of 2008–09 disrupted the delivery of books to book review editors, while offers of electronic PDFs became more common; the COVID-19 pandemic made the acquisition of books even more challenging. Several academic presses closed their warehouses for months, while journal editors struggled to place the few books they acquired for review with professors who were focused instead on implementing distance learning strategies. Nearly four years after the pandemic began, keeping the review process functioning remains a challenge, to the detriment of our collective knowledge.

When some folks continue to miss out on the opportunities offered by reviewing books, the book review sections of journals suffer from a lack of specialized expertise and viewpoints. An increase in authorship not only will lead to a more equitable distribution of scholarly contributions; it also will invigorate our collective scholarship as new voices join ongoing conversations. These diverse perspectives constitute a powerful attribute of academic discourse and provide a mentoring quality to the world of criticism that values perspectives of junior colleagues while providing space for maturation.

Reviewing is also an integrated part of a whole: a career-long cultivation of an authoritative and insightful voice that is capable of quickly perceiving an argument, contextualizing it, and offering a pertinent critique. Scholars at the top of their field enjoy a gravitas that can be marshaled in support of the genre’s importance. The discipline needs to hear critiques informed by those who have achieved the widest recognition in their careers of reading, writing, teaching, and mentoring. Critiquing newly published books for a learned audience is the best method for acquiring a normative understanding of the spirit and nature of interactive academic discourse.

A scholarly exchange of ideas also requires quality book reviews. Reviewers need not hesitate to offer criticism of an author’s work if it is delivered with civility and anchored in close reading and thoughtful consideration. A strong, critical voice will be discerned by one’s peers, so a serious, analytical, and respectful approach to the task will serve everyone’s best interests.

Book reviews need to be recognized as important work because they epitomize the culture of criticism and guide historians through contributions and challenges to prevailing orthodoxies. Colleagues, department chairs, deans, and university presidents should appreciate the importance of book reviews as faculty publications. And yet surprisingly many guidelines for tenure and promotion do not esteem reviews as valuable publications. In our experience, we encountered numerous academics reluctant to take on a review precisely because they felt pressured to publish a larger project prior to a tenure or promotion decision and thus could not prioritize reviewing over their own research.

No part of the academy can unilaterally conjure a new valuation of scholarly publication, but a dedicated effort by historians might persuade others to engage with the idea of a more fair and realistic framing of the subject. Given the number of tenured historians who serve in faculty governance and on executive councils in some capacity, there is ample opportunity to explain the need to recognize the importance of writing and publishing book reviews. In brief, old-fashioned consciousness raising may prompt a reconsideration of the status quo.

The vital role book reviews play in academic discourse is a timely topic given the issuance of the AHA’s Guidelines for Broadening the Definition of Historical Scholarship in January 2023. The guidelines create an opportunity to expand who gets to be considered an engaged historian. Recognition of the importance of book reviews also connects to the topic of job equity. Issues of job security, teaching workloads, and the demands of life influence decisions about the feasibility of potential writing projects. Many historians are not empowered to write an article or a monograph, but book reviews are achievable, especially if valued on annual reports and applications for fellowships, jobs, and tenure and promotion.

Until we rethink these processes, the major criteria in judging academic worthiness will remain based on some formulaic expression of measurable productivity wherein certain tasks matter more and others less—criteria that invariably values book reviews much less. A scheme that celebrates only the publication of books and journal articles expresses a system that marginalizes many historians. A more just and accurate approach to ascertaining merit would emphasize the idea that all scholarly production is enmeshed in a connected whole. Academics should be recognized for their participation in all aspects of that discourse.

Problems with job equity in the academy are not new, but they have become worse in recent years. Greater participation from everyone across all ranks will strengthen professional unity and have the greatest benefit to those at the margins. Adjuncts, postdocs, and visiting professors also face demanding time constraints augmented by uncertain futures, which is why their successful publication of a book review deserves appropriate recognition.

Ending the misguided judgment of what matters as a worthy publication is requisite for a more just professional culture.

The culture of criticism benefits if book reviews become a more celebrated attribute of academic publishing. They are typically presented as a lesser part of a publication, appearing in a journal after the articles and afforded limited word counts. We encourage journals whose review sections contribute to academic discourse and research to consider some of the innovative changes that could be of benefit to professional discourse. In this day of easy digitization, the posting of a thoughtful recorded discussion between two or three experts may be more appropriate than the publication of 800 words by one. Linking written or audio files online can be accomplished with ease. Those journals that have begun to reimagine their platforms with new ways of promoting criticism offer inspiration and direction.

Book reviews permit scholars of all ranks to demonstrate disciplinary expertise to their peers, which lays the groundwork for collaboration among colleagues and new avenues for research. Respect for this process may encourage our most professionally at risk colleagues by nurturing a more inclusive culture of book reviews and by recognizing the added value reviews bring to the discipline. Thus those who find themselves marginalized by an unfriendly job market still have access to significant professional discourse. Likewise, a more supportive environment is even more critical given gender and racial inequities, especially those combined with the obligations of childcare, eldercare, departmental duties, and demanding institutional service that often falls unevenly on women and minority colleagues. Ending the misguided judgment of what matters as a worthy professional publication is requisite for a more just professional culture and a stronger sense of community.

We have identified several ways the discipline may encourage individuals to write book reviews, with internal rewards remaining the strongest motivator—thus the focus on empowerment. We also encourage the discipline writ large to celebrate the potential of book reviews as a publishing standard capable of uniting all those assembled under the big tent of history. Book reviewing requires knowledge, wisdom, and insight. The more historians write, publish, and esteem book reviews, the more they promote scholarly debate, academic publishing, and the recent publications of colleagues. Recognized and rewarded as they ought to be, book reviews possess the potential to connect individuals to a more vibrant academic discourse—a distinct benefit for everyone.

The authors thank Tom Carter for copyediting this essay, and James Amelang, Kathleen Comerford, Katherine French, Audrey Kerr, Meeta Mehrotra, Allyson Poska, Lucius Wedge, and Merry Wiesner-Hanks for their comments.

Gary G. Gibbs is a professor of history, Whitney A. M. Leeson is a professor of anthropology and history, and James M. Ogier is a professor emeritus of German and linguistics at Roanoke College. Karen F. Harris is the retired book review office manager for the Sixteenth Century Journal.

Tags: Viewpoints Professional Life

The American Historical Association welcomes comments in the discussion area below, at AHA Communities , and in letters to the editor . Please read our commenting and letters policy before submitting.

Please read our commenting and letters policy before submitting.

Related Content

Sarah Fenton | Jan 13, 2015

Bruce Mazlish | Feb 1, 2001