9. How to Write Book Reviews
Ideally, book reviewers are impartial and qualified scholars. When placed in a prominent journal, a review can guide scholars to theoretical books that redefine a discipline’s self_conception and research goals. Reviews can guide teachers, helping them select classroom texts and find useful classroom references. As a final check on the editorial process, reviewers can raise the flag around a book that isn’t receiving the credit it deserves, or, if necessary, lower the flag on a weak contribution.
In the world of academic writing, however, book reviews rarely receive the credit or attention they deserve. Given their potential to change the face of scholarship, book reviews play a remarkably insignificant role. In part, book reviews are not treated seriously because the book review process has been tainted by the Star System, in which scholars trade off reviews on each other’s books. “You rub my back, and I’ll rub yours” is the underground code that often controls who reviews what and where it appears. In addition, as Stephen North argued at a recent Conference on College Composition and Communication, editors determine which books are reviewed, an arbitrary decision_making process unparalleled in other academic genres. Also, editors rarely publish multiple reviews of a single book. While authors may struggle for years to compose a useful article, and journal editors usually require extensive revision of manuscripts based on blind reviews, authors of book reviews are often expected to produce the review within a few months. In turn, editors rarely send book reviews out for refereeing, thereby subjecting the process to the will and ideology of the editor. The pressure to publish the review close to the publication date of the book also limits the amount of revision completed.
In addition, the credibility of book reviews is often weakened by who writes them: rather than being composed by senior scholars, many are written by graduate students. Productive senior scholars are simply too busy writing books or consulting to review the works of colleagues or competitors. Now, while we should encourage graduate students to begin contributing to scholarship as soon as possible, we must also question whether they are in the best position to evaluate a book. Without years of reading and writing, can they place the book in the scholarly tradition? Can they truly be expected to critique their mentors? Without the experience of writing or editing a book, will they be unduly harsh in their criticisms? What kind of message about academic writing are they receiving when asked by their mentor_teachers to write a review for one of their books or for a friend’s book?
I do not wish to sound unduly negative about reviews, nor do I wish to question the ability of all graduate students. Clearly, some highly dedicated graduate students could (and do) run academic circles around us and are capable of writing useful reviews.
You should consider writing a review if you are an avid reader, are capable of writing a balanced review and unlikely to swing toward extremes in your assessments, and are capable of concisely summarizing 400 to 600 pages in 1,200 to 2,500 words. Although book reviews may count as small change in the academic world, the bottom line is that publishing book reviews is much easier than publishing in other academic genres.
FIND A PUBLISHER FOR THE REVIEW
To find a book to review, you can talk with publishers about new releases and study publishers’ advertisements for new books. Also, listen to the academic grapevine about who is writing what, and contact an editor of a scholarly journal and describe your desire to write a review. Journal editors routinely sift through the pounds of books they receive from publishers and consult their own lists of potential reviewers or the lists suggested by the publishers.
When querying an editor, describe your credentials, mention any publishing credits, describe your specialty areas, explain why that editor should have that book reviewed, and explain why you have selected it.
DETERMINE WHETHER THE BOOK IS WORTH REVIEWING
Before agreeing to do a review, skim through the book and see whether it is worthy of your time. A poor book is not worth reviewing unless you think it is receiving undue credit. As a general principle, you should try to select books that seem significant to you and members of your community. Just because you have selected an influential book to review does not mean, however, that you should take on the persona of a sales representative. Remember, also, that experienced readers of overly zealous reviews may very well dismiss the review if it appears to be a product of the Star System.
QUESTION WHETHER YOU ARE QUALIFIED TO WRITE THE REVIEW
Once you have found a book worth reviewing, take a hard look in the mirror and ask whether you truly are qualified to critique it. Imagine the author of the book and the years of struggle that he or she went through, hoping to contribute meaning. Honestly ask yourself if you know enough about the scholarly conversation to which the book is contributing. Can you place the book in a historical framework? Are you properly familiar with the author’s previous works, presuming, of course, that such works exist? Do you know the author, and, if so, is that knowledge likely to intrude on your ability to write a fair review?
AVOID THE IDEAL TEXT SYNDROME
Researchers in composition theory have found that readers usually judge documents by comparing the author’s product with what we would have done if we were the writer. Like the horse following the carrot, we often feel frustrated. While we have an image of how the text should be formed, an inchoate sense of excellence, our ability to capture this image in words continually eludes us. Let’s face it, we can critique even the most sublime document note, for example, the endless parade of criticism regarding Shakespeare’s work. As reviewers of scholarly books, however, we need to control our propensity to assume that we know the best way to do things. We need to focus on what is really important and describe this information for our readers. And yes, in the spirit of presenting an objective evaluation, we also owe our readers some commentary regarding significant deficiencies. When carefully reading the work, therefore, you may want to divide comments into thirds: One, describe the contents of the book and its organization, while paying particular attention to the new knowledge the book contributes to scholarly discourse. Two, mention the significant weaknesses. Three, focus on the strengths. If you have juggled these three responsibilities, then the author of the review surely cannot fault you, unless, of course, he or she is a relative, in which case you may have a shorter Christmas list.
FINAL COMMENTS
As with all scholarly documents, you would be wise to share what you consider to be a final draft of the review with your colleagues before submitting it for publication. You may want to ask them whether you have given enough information about the book for them to understand your assessment of it.