{"id":19658,"date":"2023-05-13T01:55:55","date_gmt":"2023-05-13T01:55:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/questions\/critical-book-review-huey-p-newton-revolutionary-suicide-penguin-classics-2009\/"},"modified":"2023-05-13T01:55:55","modified_gmt":"2023-05-13T01:55:55","slug":"critical-book-review-huey-p-newton-revolutionary-suicide-penguin-classics-2009","status":"publish","type":"questions","link":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/questions\/critical-book-review-huey-p-newton-revolutionary-suicide-penguin-classics-2009\/","title":{"rendered":"Critical Book Review – Huey P. Newton, Revolutionary Suicide (Penguin Classics, 2009)"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

Preliminary Considerations<\/span><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

First, one must understand that a critical book review is not a book report (a summary of the contents of a book). A critical book review is a vehicle for examining and discussing issues the book itself raises or fails to raise. One writes a critical book review for the benefit of those who might not presently have time to read the book but who nevertheless need to learn more about its basic approach should they desire to read or study it at a future time. The job of the book reviewer is to inform these readers concerning any merits and\/or shortcomings the book may have. From information based on a well-written review, the reader may conclude that this book is either indispensable or inconsequential.<\/span><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Components of a Critical Book Review<\/span><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Give complete bibliographical information at the top of the page (title, author, publisher, place of publication, date of publication, number of pages, and name of reviewer).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n


    <\/p>\n

    Use the following format:<\/span><\/p>\n


    <\/p>\n

    Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament<\/span>, by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Grand<\/span><\/p>\n

    Rapids: Zondervan, l987. 250 pages. Reviewed by Randy C. Slocum.<\/span><\/p>\n


    <\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n

      Briefly state the reason this book was chosen for review. State the author’s credentials (education, place of employment, previous achievements, etc.) as a preface to giving the book a serious hearing. Biographical information about the author should be included only as it demonstrates the author\u2019s competency to write the book. Within the context of the paper, do not use titles (Dr., Rev., etc.). In most brief reviews, you will likely need to limit the introduction to one or two paragraphs.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n


      <\/p>\n

        \n
      1. \n

        Briefly (in one or two well-written sentences) summarize the thesis of the book. This is a crucial step because the thesis contains the reason why the author produced this particular book (there may be dozens on the market with similar subject matter). The thesis will state the author’s basic presuppositions and approach. The critical nature of the book review will then grow from the reviewer’s conclusion that the book does or does not achieve the author’s stated purpose.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n


        <\/p>\n

          \n
        1. \n

          The main body of a critical book review will be concerned with “thesis development.” That is, did the author achieve the stated purpose? In this section the reviewer will inspect each of the chapters of the book to see how the thesis is (or is not) developed. If the author makes progress and develops the thesis convincingly, providing adequate information and statistical data, the reviewer says so, providing concrete examples and citing their page numbers in the text.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n


          <\/p>\n

          Given the limited amount of space in a brief book review, footnotes should not be utilized.<\/span><\/p>\n

          Quotations or ideas taken directly from the text should be followed parenthetically by the page number of the quotation. The abbreviation for page(s) (p.\/pp.) should not be used.<\/span><\/p>\n


          <\/p>\n

          Example:<\/span><\/p>\n


          <\/p>\n

          Rainer argues that evangelistic churches should focus on reaching youth (20).<\/span><\/p>\n


          <\/p>\n

          Indeed, he writes, \u201cMany churches fail to recognize that adolescence is a critical time of receptivity to the gospel\u201d (21).<\/span><\/p>\n


          <\/p>\n

          Remember the purpose of a critical book review is not to provide a summary of the book. You may assume that the professor and the grader know the contents of the book.<\/span><\/p>\n


          <\/p>\n

          Questions the reviewer will seek to answer in this section might include:<\/span><\/p>\n


          <\/p>\n

            \n
          • \n

            Is there an adequate, consistent development of the author’s stated thesis?Why or why not?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

          • \n

            What is the author\u2019s purpose, i.e., what does he\/she hope to accomplish through this book? Does the author accomplish the purpose? If so, how does he\/she do so? If not, why not?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

          • \n

            Does the author approach the subject with any biases, i.e., do the author\u2019s theological, experiential, philosophical, denominational, or cultural perspectives influence his\/her conclusions?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

          • \n

            Does the author properly support his\/her thesis? Does the author adequately consider and refute opposing viewpoints? Is the book limited in application to specific types of churches? Is the book relevant to contemporary culture?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

          • \n

            Does the author have to resort to suppression of contrary evidence in order to make the thesis credible (slanting)? If so, what additional evidence would weaken the case?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

          • \n

            Is the thesis sound but marred by a flawed procedure?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

          • \n

            Is the author’s case proved, or would another thesis have been more appropriately chosen?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n


            <\/p>\n

            E. Finally, a summary section should be attached. How does this book differ from other treatments of the same subject matter? What is unique and valuable about this approach as opposed to the others? Would the reviewer recommend this book above others? Why or why not?<\/span><\/p>\n


            <\/p>\n

            This final summary should include the major strengths and weaknesses of the book and evaluate its value for readers who may be interested in that particular field of inquiry. Your primary purpose in this section is to respond both positively and negatively to the book\u2019s contents and presentation. Needless to say, this response should be more in-depth than,<\/span><\/p>\n

            \u201cThis book is a good book that should be recommended reading for everyone. \u201d<\/span><\/p>\n


            <\/p>\n

            F. The length of the review should be between 3 and 4 pages, double-spaced using Times New Roman 12-Point font. Style Issues for a Critical Book Review Turabian\u2019s A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (7th ed.) is the accepted standard for style issues.<\/span><\/p>\n

            <\/p>\n

            <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

            Preliminary Considerations First, one must understand that a critical book review is not a book report (a summary of the contents of a book). A critical book review is a vehicle for examining and discussing issues the book itself raises or fails to raise. One writes a critical book review for the benefit of those […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[706],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/19658"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19658"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/19658\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19658"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=19658"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=19658"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=19658"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}