How to write a book review: examples

The French writer Victor Hugo received the shortest review of his work: his query with one question mark received an equally terse answer from the publisher - one exclamation point.

When you like everything in a book, you don't need extra words. When it contains controversial points, unmentionable truths, or the new and frightening, it needs more than a "stick with a dot." It's about the review, ladies and gentlemen!

Next is the theory, without which you can't do without.

Definition

A book review is a critical analysis or evaluation of a work written in scientific, artistic, or journalistic style to form an opinion about it among the target audience. Any work can be reviewed: fiction, journalism, and so on.

What it gives the reviewer:

• Helps make sense of what you've read;
• it is suitable for publishing on a blog and attracting traffic; an opportunity to show expertise → to attract the attention of publishers → to start reviewing on a commercial basis.
• A review is a responsibility. It needs to be written meticulously and thoughtfully, because we are forming the final opinion of the book and creating the initial impression with other people. Are we doing it right?

Now you can define the criteria for a good review. Consider adding something of your own to the list below.

Criteria for a good review

• Brief bibliographic information about the author, information about the year of publication or republication, the theme, key moments of the narrative, analysis of the title.
• Features of the composition.
• Analysis of the book with a focus on a specific target audience.
• Personal impressions of what has been read.
• Analysis of the good and bad sides.
• Enough information to form an opinion about the book (from 1,000 to 3,000 printed characters).
• The reviewer does the analysis of the new book from a clean slate, relying only on his or her own opinion.
• Mentioning the author's previous works and regalia, without subservience or bias.
• Tactfulness towards the author.
• Absence of errors.

Classification of reviews

At the end of the theoretical part, I propose to consider two of the most capacious, in my opinion, options for classifying reviews, which will provide additional clarity.

• by object: music, films, theater productions, books;
• by subject, i.e. the author of the review: an expert, a reader or a commissioned reviewer whose positive review has been paid for;
• by the quantitative characteristic, i.e. the number and volume of works reviewed;
• by type: detailed professional analysis of a work, a short review written by a reader, an essay with a dominant personal opinion in which the reviewer expresses his or her attitude to the book, author's review, book reviews.

The necessary theory is over. Now...

Preparing for the review

This is going to be truly "captain's" advice.

It is necessary to begin with a thorough study of the book. It is necessary to read it several times, not just once. First from the point of view of an ordinary reader, then to conduct a thorough analysis, allowing for a critical review.

As you work, you can arm yourself with a pen and notepad, paper bookmarks, or post-it notes.

Now you are ready for the review. Take your time, check yourself. 

• Don't read other reviews of the book, or you risk writing your review in someone else's words.
• Don't be embarrassed if your opinion differs dramatically from that of the majority. Don't be afraid of the chorus - write. A competent review will only be a plus: a thinking audience will appreciate it.
• The more negative your opinion, the more arguments you need to give in its favor. In this case the review will be more voluminous.
• Use logic and emotion in equal proportions.
• Do not have a mental, and sometimes even an animal physical, fear of the author. If you bought the book, and not "spirited", you have the right to speak out in a reasoned way.

Writing a review plan

No one prevents you from making your own plan, but you can use a typical plan.

1. A bibliographical description of the book: title, author, year of publication (if a reprint, indicate which one), publisher.
2. A small paraphrase of the content in one or three sentences.
3. Directly a review (personal impressions).
4. Analytical part - analysis of the title, contents, structure, practical examples, etc.
5. Highlighting all the advantages and disadvantages of the book.
6. Final evaluation and personal conclusions about the relevance and quality of the book, recommendations to readers.

Great! Now let's begin...

The review process

There is a saying, "Don't judge a book by its cover. I don't agree with it, because the physical data of a book directly affects the ease of reading and the first impression. In this regard, I conditionally divide the review process into two parts, the first of which...

Form Review

The good thing about it is that:

• does not require reading;
• fairly quickly compiled;
• more objective than a content review.

Bad in that:

• it should take time to give an assessment on some criteria;
• is still not devoid of subjectivity, because there is another saying about "taste and color...".

When one reviews gadgets, one always inserts images into the texts. I selected and photographed several "test" books from my home library to show what components of the form can be reviewed.

Content review

To produce a decent critical analysis, the reviewer must have a command of the material at least at the same level as the author, or better yet, at a higher level.

After studying several versions of reviewing, I have highlighted some common points.

1. One strategy can be followed in a paper: an outsider's view, analysis without evaluation, critical analysis, or open discussion with the author.
2. Avoid a trivial paraphrase. You can dissect the title, the content, the way the book is structured, the author's style and craftsmanship, but do it intelligently and intriguingly.
3. State your impression of the book, justifying all the negative and positive points.
4. Note the relevance of the work and the extent to which it hits the target audience.
5. Point out stylistic, factual, grammatical errors made by the author. Cross-check their presence.
6. Watch your own style: do not use jargon, colloquialisms, or clericalisms.
7. Keep sentences shorter and simpler, depending on the length of the review. Avoid ambiguous evaluations.
8. Try to separate your experience with other books on the subject and the actual usefulness of the book you are reviewing.
9. Conclude the review with an appeal to future readers.

As you compose your appeal, remember: You are not an inquisitor. A blunt statement and an expressed unwillingness to engage with the author does not constitute a review.

Ethics of reviewing 

• Check all dates, facts, figures, names, and titles.
• Keep the tone of the message businesslike and friendly.
• Do not impose your view on the author.
• Don't let your attitude toward the author influence your opinion of the book.
• Before publishing the review, alert the creator of the work to prepare a reasoned response.

So you've done a critical analysis of the work. Don't rush to publish, check yourself first...

Reviewing errors

• Lack of sufficient knowledge of the theme of the work.
• Retelling the book instead of a detailed analysis.
• Complete substitution of logic for emotions.
• Priority of personal opinion over an objective assessment, general value judgments.
• Small number of arguments or their low quality.
• Familier attitude to the author.
• Excessive self-confidence or insecurity of the reviewer.
• Substitution of a review for a review. One-word reviews such as "good book," "total c%??" - this is not a review. It's important to answer questions in your review:
• What kind of book is being reviewed, who is the author, when was it written and published?
• In what genre was it written?
• What is the main idea of the work?
• What is the structure of the narrative?
• What impression did the book have on the reader?

Conclusion

You have learned that reviewing a book is a process of colliding two contradictions: one's own opinion must be combined with an unbiased professional view.

When writing a review, it is important not to drown in emotion. A purely enthusiastic response will always look biased and even paid for. Full of negativity - as a reviewer's personal dislike of the author and unwillingness to see beyond his nose.

It is possible to find a gem of a thought in absolutely every book. Reviewing helps you do that faster.