Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
GUIDELINES FOR WRITING A HISTORICAL BOOK REVIEW :
What they fought for, 1861-1865
INTRODUCTION
A book review is much more than a book report. Rather than a simple summary of a book’s contents, a review is a critical essay evaluating a historical work. Its purpose is not to prove that you read the book—although you still need to do that—but to show that you can think critically about what you read. You should write a coherent analysis of the book, illustrating its strengths and weaknesses.
STAGE 1: AS YOU READ AND PREPARE TO WRITE
You should consider the following issues while you are reading the book to help you better evaluate it. Make notes as you read, so you don’t forget your observations or have to go back and hunt out reference.
a) Purpose: What was the author’s intent behind the book? Did she or he state it explicitly, or did you have to infer it? Does the book have a clear central thesis?
b) Summarize the author’s subject and argument.
In a few sentences, describe the time period, major events, geographical scope and group or groups of people who are being investigated in the book. Why has the author chosen the starting and ending dates of the book’s narrative? Next, discover the major thesis or theses of the book, the argument(s) that the author makes and attempts to support with evidence. These are usually, but not always, presented in a book’s introduction. It might help to look for the major question that the author is attempting to answer and then try to write his or her answer to that question in a sentence or two. Sometimes there is a broad argument supported by a series of supporting arguments. It is not always easy to discern the main argument, but this is the most important part of your book review.
c) What is the structure of the book?
Are the chapters organized chronologically, thematically, by group of historical actors, from general to specific, or in some other way? How does the structure of the work enhance or detract from the argument?
d) Style: Is the book well written? Is it easy to understand? Does it flow well? Is the writing dense and heavy with jargon, making it hard to grasp? Does the author show a flair that goes beyond simple communication? Does the writing make the book more effective or more interesting?
e) Sources: What kind of sources does the author use? Are they mainly published documents, or do they include archival records? Does the author draw on other materials such as novels, interviews, or artwork? Do you think he or she has tapped all the major sources available or are there omissions? Is the evidence convincing? If so, find a particularly supportive example and explain how it supports the author’s thesis. If not, give an example and explain what part of the argument is not supported by evidence. You may find that some evidence works, while some does not. Explain both sides, give examples, and let your readers know what you think overall.
f) Contextualization: How well does the author explain the wider context of the events or developments that he or she is discussing? Is the book narrowly focused or does the author try to connect to wider developments? Does the focus make sense to you? Does it help you better understand what happened?
g) Silences: What does the author omit, exclude, or overlook? Does that weaken the book? Does this help you understand the author’s purpose?
h) Fit: How does the book relate to other historical literature? Does the book break new ground or advance knowledge in significant ways? Does it modify common understandings, or does it reiterate and uphold accepted views? Does it bring a new methodology or theoretical approach to the topic? Is it a contentious work? If it is an older book, was it controversial when it was published? Have the author’s ideas been widely accepted since then? Why or why not?
i) Is the argument convincing as a whole?
Is there a particular place where it breaks down? Why? Is there a particular element that works best? Why? Would you recommend this book to others, and if so, for whom is it appropriate? General readers? Undergraduates? Graduates and specialists in this historical subject? Why? Would you put any qualifications on that recommendation?
STAGE 2: AS YOU WRITE
Your review is a short critical essay. As you write and edit your paper, you should ensure that you include the following:
a) A brief, effective introduction that lays out the theme or central argument of your review.
Introduce the author, the historical period and topic of the book. Tell the reader what genre of history this work belongs to or what approach the author has used. Set out the main argument.
b) Summarize the book’s organization and give a little more detail about the author’s sub-arguments. Here you would also work in your assessment of the evidence and sources used.
c) The body of the essay should be a series of observations/your arguments about the book, pointing out its strengths and weaknesses. Your ideas should flow in a logical order and be connected to one another. Don’t just jumble ideas together; look for a way to organize your ideas effectively.
d) In the conclusion, you may state your recommendations for readership unless that has been covered in your discussion of the book’s strengths and weaknesses. You might review how convincing the argument was, say something about the importance or uniqueness of the argument and topic, or describe how the author adds to our understanding of a particular historical question.
