Each of the following book reviews has a different approach, but much in common.
What we like about all these reviews:
· The reviewers of each one have clearly digested the contents of the books in order to summarize key points in their own words;
· They use interview quotations or book segments sparingly to punctuate a point;
· The reviewers bring a bit of their own knowledge or expertise to the books they review (e.g., Canada’s racial history, local climate change, or reference to relevant scholarship);
· The reviewers draw on and analyze the themes they see;
· The reviewers offer current or historical context*;
· The reviewers use strong, active verbs;
AND
· They know they can’t focus on every detail, so discuss what they find most relevant
*For example, if the book is focused on a place most people will be unfamiliar with, tell the reader something about that place; for example, “Fayette County, Tennessee is in southwestern Tennessee, and was a major cotton-growing area in the nineteenth century” (the latter relevant to a book on civil rights). (See: Our Portion of Hell: Fayette County: Tennessee: an Oral History of the Struggle for Civil Rights, Fall 2024.) In this example, whether or not the author included this information in the book, the reviewer has provided a small bit of their own research to help situate the reader.
Sample Book Reviews
They Call Me George: The Untold Story of Black Train Porters and the Birth of Modern Canada
Strong introduction and summary of the book, the history that it addresses (including the myths it debunks) and the people the author interviews. The second paragraph begins with the author but seamlessly segues between his work and his subject matter, which he then builds upon in paragraph three. He then goes on to list the sources the author uses and states who will find the book of interest. Paragraph 4 starts, “A main focus of Foster’s work…” before discussing immigration laws in Canada after WWII, but the introductory clause allows the reviewer to consider the book as a whole. He also discusses Canadian policy through the author’s lens and discoveries, building more context on Canada’s racialized history. In the penultimate paragraph, the author discusses the strength of the book through his, the reviewer’s, own critical lens, discussing how the author uses the porters’ own words/experiences in several ways. In the final paragraph, the reviewer sums up the book thematically and makes clear its relevance to the present moment.
See https://doi.org/10.1080/00940798.2020.1839285
The Injustice Never Leaves You: Anti-Mexican Violence in Texas
The review begins with a strong positive statement while acknowledging that the book has been reviewed elsewhere and suggesting who it appeals to before succinctly explaining that appeal and the sources the author relies upon. In the second paragraph, he discusses what he sees as the core strength of the book. In the third, he brings in the author’s background, which he sees as a strength (she’s an insider), introduces the theme of intergenerational trauma, and mentions “the best example of this,” which he states is in the second chapter. The reviewer then provides historical context (from the book) that he uses as a transition to discuss chapter three and builds on his commentary with a note on the author’s approach throughout the book. The reviewer focuses on what the interviews reveal and rounds out his review by both bringing in outside scholarship and current events.
See https://doi.org/10.1080/00940798.2021.1915070
Hurricane Sandy on New Jersey’s Forgotten Shore
The reviewer’s strong voice and point of view are clear in the introductory sentence. She also succinctly summarizes the book and indicates that it is a major contribution to the oral history of climate change in the first paragraph. In the second, she steps back to explain the university student oral history project that informed the book, telling the reader that there are seventy oral histories and where they are housed, among other things. She then gives an overview of the book’s subjects before introducing five of the people interviewed by project interviewers and what those interviews revealed. While this is not true or necessary with all book reviews, here the reviewer’s background in oral history is clear for the way in which she discusses its methodological contributions and shortcomings. The reviewer also discusses the book as a framework for oral history on climate change and allows herself to ruminate on the deeper meanings of the book while not only remaining relevant to Review readers but bringing in important context. She ends the review with a call to action.
