 Welcome friends, today I am going to talk about book reviews, how to write book reviews and we will see this is not just summarizing the book or just describing the content but it goes beyond just a mere description. And also we are going to talk about the academic book reviews, it is not about the fictions or the book reviews that appear in popular literature but about the reviews that appear in academic journals. So let's start today's discussion. So today we will be discussing about the introduction of the book to begin with and then outlining what are the various aspects of the book and then highlighting certain aspects and providing one's opinion about the book and a general evaluation of the book. So this is what we are going to discuss today. So to begin with the primary audience for a book review is the journal's readership. So the general readership of the journal is looking for these book reviews for certain information and one of the information that they require is information about new books. The books that have appeared have been published recently and readers want to know about them and especially about the innovative and ground breaking books and they also need to be warned about books that are of poor quality and those that may not relate to their area of interest. So the book reviewer is providing that vital information for the readers. So to begin with the book review is an evaluative critique. So there is an evaluation process there and readers are interested in the book reviewer's opinions. They are in fact looking for opinions. So we can't shy away from opinions and also about factual mistakes or shortcomings or weaknesses. They are also there in the book review. But one important part is that the reader wants our opinion as a reviewer. First of all, it has to be a straightforward account of what the book is all about, a candid account of what the book is. A critique of the book's soundness and that is in respect to the context in which it is written and what it sets out to do by itself. So that critique is important evaluating it in its own context and then placing the book in its historical context. What are the other books that have been written before that and where does it place or where can we place this particular book in that context? And this review writing has to be lively. It cannot be regular, turgid writing, so it has to be lively writing. And the reviewer should also provide information about the book's intended audience or what the authors expected the audience to be. So there are various ways or there are various reasons or there are certain criteria for choosing a particular book to review. First of all, it should belong to your particular field. So for example, you are a digital media researcher, then you should be reviewing books which are closer to your area of study or where you have a sound background knowledge of the topic. Because without that background knowledge, you will not be able to place the book in its relevant context and also its contribution to the field. Another important thing or another important criterion for choosing the book is that it must be published in the past two to three years. And generally people look for books from reputable publishers but again that can be quite subjective. So it must belong to your field of study, you must have a sound background knowledge of the topic and it must be a recent publication. A lot of times people regard a book as some kind of an academic syndrome and there are quite a few questions about whether or where is a book review placed as far as one's publication goes. So this is a very, very important contribution that a writer is making when he is writing a book review. Because he is contributing to the professional literature by acting as an entrusted critic. So you are an entrusted critic, you have been entrusted by the journal editors or you have been entrusted by the readers to provide an academic overview of the book itself. So you are contributing to the professional literature. And the reviewer is responsible for informing the readers of seminal works and warning them of inaccurate scholarship. So that is why the book review is a very important component of a journal and there are separate book review editors in standard journals. So that is a major contribution one is making as a writer so one should not feel shy of not writing book reviews more often. And very importantly book review is an exercise in self-education because one can write a book review only after one has written, one has read the book in its entirety and also looked out for context and all. So this is a very important exercise in self-education as well. So as I said these book reviews are invited by the book review editor to conduct the review. So generally in that way it is a commissioned kind of a process where one is invited to conduct the review and generally the book that the person is reviewing is provided for free by the publishers or by the review editors. So this is one very important aspect and being a specialist on an authority in that particular field is generally an asset but it is not a necessity. So you need not be a specialist in that particular field although you must have some knowledge of that field but being a specialist or an authority in that particular field is not a necessity. So this format is quite open, certain journals have specific requirements for example they have to start off with the author, the publisher, the ISBN number, the number of pages or any special characteristics of the book and there are certain word limits also. So it depends on various journals but often the review is between 600 to 2000 words. So as I said generally there might not be a strict specific structure on which people have to write book reviews but certain journals insist on certain structures. But these next two slides are about some general guidelines about how to write a review and then we will go on to specifically talk about those various components of book reviews. So we start off with the title generally with the complete bibliographic citation for the work. So we start off with the title, the author, the place, the publisher, the date of publication, the edition statement, pages, price, ISBN and all those things right at the beginning. And then the introductory paragraph is generally about identifying the thesis or the main argument of the book and whether the author achieves the stated purpose of the book. The author's stated purpose is more important as we'll see later it is not about what he's missed out but what has been written in the book and what was the stated purpose of the book and whether that has been met or not. So there are one or two paragraphs summarizing the book to begin with. Then there is one paragraph on the book's strengths and another paragraph on the book's weaknesses and finally the assessment of the reviewer of the book's strengths and weaknesses. So there is the opening of the reviewer. So generally this is the structure that we go along and we will talk in details about these structures in the next few slides once again. So before we start reviewing it's important to read, scan and make notes about the text as one goes along. So there might be interesting quotations or there might be some interesting observations that as a reader you are reminded about. So it's important to make notes of the text as one goes along. I mean it's not just about scanning the text but at times it might involve a second reading to know more about these observations or these important context that come to mind. Then the reviewer starts with an initial rough draft of the review. So it doesn't just happen at one go. There is an initial rough draft and that goes for all writing including academic writing and then we have the editing and the polishing process. So we read and scan and make notes about the text, we write an initial rough draft, then we edit and polish this initial rough draft several times to produce a final version. So as I said in the beginning the first part is about introducing the book or that introduction part can have these sub-components. So the first is about the general topic of the book. So in the introduction part we might be talking about what is the general topic of the book and what is the readership for which the book is aimed at. So it's not important that we cover all these points but these are just general guidelines about certain kinds of books. Then in certain reviews we also write about the author or about the competence of the author to write about this particular book. Then we talk about the topic generalizations that what are the general topics. We start off with the field itself and then we talk about those sub-fields in the book. And then we place the book in its field. So does it belong to the field of philosophy for example or does it belong to the field of social psychology for example. So that is where we place the book as reviewers. So these are the five things that we can do in the introduction part. And then comes the outlining part and there we provide a general view of the organization of the book. How has the book been organized? Whether it has been organized thematically or whether it has been organized chronologically or whether there is some other way of the narrative structure of the book itself. And then we talk about the topic of each section generally. In book reviews we are not going to talk about all the chapters as I said right at the beginning. We are not about summarizing but generally all these major sections are summarized in the outlining part. And we might even be citing extra textual material or we might be talking about other arguments or other evidence of the argument which has been put in the book. For example if the book talks about public sphere and Indian democracy so we might be talking about other elements of public sphere or other books which have dealt with these kind of things. This is an important part of the review process and here we provide this specific evaluation. So one's evaluation and that is why this personal touch is so very important that the writer or the reviewer is expected to provide his specific evaluation or his opinion about the book itself. So that highlighting part is one very important part of the book review process. In the general evaluation which is generally the last part of the book review writing process we can be recommending the book for all readers or for certain kinds of readers. Or we can be recommending despite of the shortcomings that we've identified or we neither recommend or neither we disqualify the book. We might be disqualifying the book despite the positive aspects. We might be suggesting that the book is not contributing much to the field or we might be definitely disqualifying the book. So it depends and we'll see that later on that it's very very important to not be overly critical. So we have to be constructive in the criticism. So we'll talk about that. So these are the evaluations that we might provide in the book review process. So these are the things that we start off with. When we start off writing the book review we have to capture the reader's attention and also outline the aims and scope of the book that is being reviewed. And then we will talk about the central ideas of the book. We have also discussed about this being as the general topic of the book. So what is the central argument or what are the central ideas of the book and what are the key arguments of the book itself so that we can review those key arguments. So it's important for us to provide our views on those key arguments. And then as we said earlier to talk about these strengths and weaknesses and most importantly to talk about how is the book unique in its way. So that highlighting the book's uniqueness is a very important part of the review process. And also the book's contribution to the field. So does it make some original contribution or does it take us further on certain theoretical directions. So that contribution is important. So that will help a reader or it will help the journal readers place the book in its context. And it will as we said it will provide a very important overview of this contribution of this book in the field. So criticism should always be substantiated. And there must be examples and relevant explanations. So unless we provide justification for the criticism we are not being true to the review process. So it's important to first of all make the criticism or make any criticism substantiated with examples or relevant explanations and also to make it constructive. So just be overly negative is not what something is looking at or at least you have to provide the justification for any kind of criticism. And that is a very important part that we must keep in mind because it is filtered through our experiences and through our ideas of that particular field. So it's important for all reviewers to be aware of the problem of this reviewer bias. So there might be certain things that we consider negatively or there might be certain things that we consider positively. But we must ensure that when we are reviewing this book it is done with fairness it's done with accuracy and it's done with objectivity. So that is a problematic issue because different people might have different ideas about those issues at hand and certain reviewers might be overly negative about certain context as I just said. So that reviewer bias has to be kept in mind both by the journal editors and by the people reviewing the book. So in the next few slides I'll talk about what is a good review or what should be there in a good book review and what should not be there. So first of all it has to be written in a professional and constructive manner. So that professionalism has to be very clear in the writing part as well. And it should have an incisive pin pointing of the strengths and weaknesses of the book. So I've spoken about the strengths and weaknesses at quite a few places but it must have that incisive pin pointing. So it must not be in generality. So what are the exact strengths and what are the exact weaknesses of the book. So as we've seen earlier it has to be within 600 to 2000 words. So it has to be very succinct but at the same time it must provide a very comprehensive account. So that is why this choice of words or the choice of review structure is very important. And we regard it as a good review when there is a good critique of the theory in the field and the place of the book within it. So the place of the book within the theory in the field that we are talking about. So where is its place and whether we are able to provide a critique of the book itself and of the theory if required and how is the book addressing those theories. And as we saw in the last slide the criticism must be substantiated and it must be constructive. So it goes as we said beyond criticisms to draw conclusions of much broader importance. And we keep on repeating that we are talking about the contribution of the book in the particular field in which it is written. And we are also supposed to provide some kind of a judgment of the book against its competitors. So there might be similar books so how do we as reviewers or how do we personally see this particular book as compared to those competing books that have been published recently or maybe even earlier. So whether the book readers needs are addressed by the book reviewer. So whatever information that the reader might require whether they are available in the review. It should also indicate if possible how the reviewer's views changed as a result of reading the text. And this is very common to all readers when we start reading a book we think that the book is going in a particular direction but as the argument goes along or as the book goes along our views change. So how do those views change. And then finally of course whether the book that is being reviewed or whether the review that we have written whether that follows the journal's guide and whether it follows the house style and whether it follows all the requirements of structure and words and all that. And if there is any conflict of interest. So as we said many of these books are provided free of cost by the publishers. In certain cases journals want to make this very upfront that this was this is a possible conflict of interest. It is undesirable that the reviewer has minimal knowledge of the subject. So if the reviewer is not very knowledgeable of the subject then it's not very often the journal editors will not be commissioning the book review to that particular author. So a sound knowledge of the field is important. If there are incorrect or insubstantial claims or references that then it's not a good review and the review editor might not see this very kindly. So these things can be avoided. So a review of the book's content but no critique. So it's just a review of the content and there is no critique. As I said that critique of the context or the theoretical context in which the book is placed and how does it address that or how does it not address that or what is it contributing to the field. So that critique is very important. If that critique is not there then it's not a good book review. If the reviewer fails to discuss the book's argument and words then the reviewer has not done his job properly. The written and unprofessional style where the reviewer is trying to show his or her superiority in the field or in the language then that is not a good review. And also if it's just a chapter by chapter summary it's not a very good review. If the reviewer is just extolling his or her own ideas or philosophy without any reference to the content of the book itself. So your opinion is regarding the content of the book not your own ideas or philosophy. So it can be your own ideas or philosophy relating to what the book intends to say or is saying. So your own ideas or philosophy if they are extolled to the exclusion of the content then that is undesirable. And if you are using over word to non-original cliched statements then that is also not a good review and that is undesirable. If and that is very important that if we keep on concentrating on what the author should have written rather than what he has written then that is very undesirable because it's practically impossible for the author to include everything in the short space of the book that he has written. So if one describes about what should have been written then that is probably not a good review. And if the author or the reviewer fails to tell the reader about how the book fits into the larger body of literature then that is not a good review. So we just discussed the do's and don'ts of reviews by talking first of all about what is desirable in a good review and what is undesirable in a good review or what we should avoid in a good review. So we have to as I said just in the next two slides I am just going to talk about just summarizing the review part so we have to evaluate the text not just summarize it. So that evaluation or providing your opinion is what is required in the review. And do not cover everything in the book it is impossible or it is not good to cover whatever is there in the book. So we cannot just use the table of contents as a structuring principle. So whatever is there in the table of content and I just follow that structure in the book review process so probably that is not a good idea. We have to as I said provide all the other important inputs in the structure that we have just spoken about. So covering everything from the table of contents or structuring it just like that is not the right way of writing a book review. So another very important suggestion is to judge the book by its intentions what the book intended to set out to do or what was the readership that it was addressing. So we must not judge the book by our intentions but about what the author intended to do. So we cannot criticize the author for failing to write the book that we as a reviewer should have written. So it is not based on that particular criterion. It is absolutely based on the criterion about what the author intended to write about. What is the readership that he was addressing and where do we place this particular work in the larger theoretical field. And very important not to spend too much time focusing on gaps because as I said a book can be about 200 to 500 words. So it cannot in any number of pages 200 to 500 pages. So in 200 to 500 pages a book cannot possibly address the richness of any topic. So if there is any topic the book in so many pages cannot address all the aspects of the topic. So it's impossible for an author to address all the different aspects and perspectives of a topic. So if we as reviewers focus too much on these gaps then we are being unkind to the author and also to the readers of the review. Also we are asked not to use too many quotes from the book. It's better to paraphrase or use short telling quotes within the sentences. So not to use the longer quotes from the book to emphasize our points. We can just use short telling quotes and paraphrase it in our own words. And finally in this particular slide we are and this is from Hartley's work. A lot of what I presented is from various journal articles by Hartley. So for example when the reviewer says this is a surprising book. What the reviewer means is this is much better than expected. So that's how a reviewer writes a mixed bag. So here the reviewer wants to suggest that not much in this one but one or two chapters was worth thinking about. So that's not too much so when somebody writes a mixed bag so that is just about one or two chapters which might be interesting. A useful book for the library that means it's not a very exciting book. The discussion is somewhat abstruse. So here the reviewer probably didn't understand much of the discussion as we said. For the most part this is a thorough lucid and well argued book but a few weaknesses can be noted. So here that's where the criticism will start. In my view more scholarly reference would be better for the readers of this text than the powerball information referred to on websites. So this is a lightweight text. This is what the reviewer intends to say. This is a useful account of an astonishing work. So everyone has to make his or her own ideas about that. So thank you very much for your patience. So we'll come back with another recorded lecture soon. Thank you so much.