journal and review

The Review For this assignment, you will be required to write a scholarly review of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. In this review, you will be required to interpret The Road within a larger conversation (based on the themes you have been developing throughout the past few weeks). Your review will need to include supplemental information from two of our previous texts. 750 Word Minimum. Posted to your Class Blog. Legible font, images, sound, etc. strongly recommended. Why Write and How to Write a Review: The purpose of a scholarly review is to summarize, analyze, evaluate, and place within a field of scholarship whatever is being reviewed. Often, the audience of the scholarly review has some familiarity with the text (book, movie, TV show, etc) that is being reviewed. Even if this is not the case, the audience will have some background and/or interest in the discipline and the subject. Consequently, the scholarly review is less a summary and more a critical evaluation or commentary. The type of review that you will engage in is often referred to as a critique, a critical analysis, or a critical review. Whatever it’s called, the scholarly review tells an educated audience of the significance of a text or film within the context of a discipline, field of study, or particular subject or course. Looking at reviews published in various magazines, newspapers, and scholarly journals will give you a good idea of the differing audiences and forms of review. You can find current book/movie reviews using the same library tools that you use to find any other type of academic source. Using the advanced search option, choose “book review” as your preferred document type to limit your search to only reviews. What a Review is Not

• A review is not a research paper. Some students, instead of writing about a book or a film when they are asked to write a review, write a research paper on the subject of the book or film.

• A review is not a summary. While it is important to summarize the contents and significance of whatever you review, you are not merely informing your audience of the basic plot or events. Instead, you are writing towards a different audience that will be interested in a critical evaluation, analysis, and/or commentary on the material.

• A review is not an “off-the-cuff,” personal response. Writing a review will involve communicating a personal view on the material, but flippant statements that don’t express your understanding of what you have read do not further the conversation. Comments like: “I thought the book was interesting” or “The book was boring” are not sufficient. Instead, you should strive to explain why the book was

interesting (not only for yourself, but potentially for others). Did the text reveal some new data/thoughts? In order to be effective, a reviewer must be fair and accurate. You will need to work hard to express the underlying reasons for your first reactions.

• A review is not a string of quotations. Use quotations sparingly. On another note, avoid using quotations from other reviews; you will need to be writing your own review, not compiling other reviewers’ opinions.

As with all writing, there is more than one way to proceed. You will, however, need to accomplish certain things for this review:

1) Read critically. Being critical does not mean criticizing or reading with a “bad attitude.” Reading critically means asking questions and formulating well- informed answers. Critical readers do not reject a text or take a negative approach to it because they think something is wrong or bad; a critical reader inquires about the text, the author, themselves, and the context surrounding all three. As you read critically, consider the following:

o What issues or themes are apparent throughout the text? o What does the author ignore/leave out? o Does this text contribute to a larger societal conversation? How? What is

the outcome? What might a reader take away from the text in regards to their daily lives?

These questions will help you, the reviewer, to understand a text on its own terms (analyze it); bring your own knowledge to inform the text (respond to it); critique the text considering validity, truth, slant (evaluate it); and place the text in context (ongoing conversation).

2) Seeing the text. It is extremely important to work towards seeing a clear and accurate picture of the text. Here are some questions that will help you analyze the text:

o What is the text about? What of the content should be described in this review?

o What is the thesis, main theme, or main point of the text? (Sometimes these will not be explicitly stated by a text).

o What major claims or conclusions does the author make (if they make any at all)? What issue does the text illuminate? What attitude to life does it present?

o What is the structure of the text? How does the author implement this structure to build on their argument?

o What kind of language, descriptions, or sections help alert you to the themes and significance of the text?

o Is there any claim for which the evidence presented is insufficient or slight? Do any of the conclusions rest on evidence that may be uncommon? Which sections of the text reflect on our own “real-life” world? Which don’t? Why? And if so, what is the effect?

o How is the argument in the text developed? How do the claims relate? How does the text proceed? What does the conclusion reveal when compared to the beginning?

3) Considering context. Context is the conversation and ideas that surround a particular text. The context may include: widely-acclaimed scholarship, a particular personal motive for writing (to document an injustice or ingratiate myself with a leading expert), or, perhaps, the context is simply contemporary society or today’s headlines. A reviewer needs to examine the text’s context in order to arrive at a fair understanding and evaluation of its contents and importance. Here are some useful quotations:

o What are the connections between this text and others on similar subjects? How does it relate to my course? To scholarship? To the discipline?

o What is the scholarly significance of this text? What contributions does it make?

o What is missing from the text? Does it omit or ignore the experiences of certain groups?

o What other perspectives or conclusions are possible? Structural Guidelines The best order is the order that allows you to express your ideas in a logical and coherent manner (consider your audience). However, there are some general structural guidelines that you will want to follow when writing a review, especially if you are unfamiliar with this genre of writing. Remember, these are guidelines, not a rigid formula. You will find, as you read more and more reviews, that many of them do not always follow the structure outlined here. (But you will notice that most reviews do include a majority of the information).

I. Introduction: Do exactly what you would do if you were standing in front of an audience: introduce what you will review, the author, and the points you intend to make about this work. a. provide relevant bibliographic information b. give the reader a clear idea of the nature, scope, and significance of the

work c. indicate your evaluation of the work in a clear 1-2 sentence thesis statement d. Provide background information to help your readers understand the

importance of the work or the reasons for your appraisal. Some examples are: i. explain why the issue examined is of interest (to your audience) ii. tell what scholarship says about this subject iii. describe the author’s perspective, methodology, purpose iv. give information concerning the circumstances under which the

text was created II. Summary: Summarize the contents very briefly (Tip: Keep it short):

a. focus on the main points and purposes of the work that are relevant to your argument

b. focus also on the ideas, themes, or arguments that you will evaluate or discuss later

III. Analysis/Evaluation: Analyze and explain the significance of the main points of the work. Evaluate the work, answering questions such as the following: a. does the work do what its author claimed it would?

b. leaving out your own points of agreement or disagreement, is the work valid and accurate?

c. what are your reasons for agreeing, disagreeing, liking, disliking, believing, disbelieving?

IV. Conclusion/Recommendation: Give your overall assessment of the work. Reiterate your main points. Explain the larger significance of your assessment.