A friendly reminder that book reviews are commissioned; it’s not like a regular manuscript where you submit it on your own. If you want to write a book review, contact the journal’s book review editor to talk first.
Curious how long it takes to write a book review? I’ll go first:
I was asked in mid-Oct; worked mostly in Nov/Dec, submitted by early Dec.
It took ~7 hrs to read the book (I’m a slow reader) and make some notes. About 3 hrs to write. 15 min for page proofs.
~10 hours
So it’s about the same for me as reading a book under normal circumstances and I have much better notes about that book. Plus, it guarantees I actually read that book–which I get for free, btw.
Writing book reviews is underrated service. Ultimately, it’s good for our research.
We’ve been talking about book reviews on here a bit. As @hadaraviram noted, people need to write more of them. Demystification may help. So, a thread on the point of book reviews, different styles of reviews, and career considerations. cc: #AcademicTwitter
First, some caveats. (a) These are my views, but I’m curious to hear others’ views–mine aren’t necessarily correct, nor are they the only ones. /2
(b) These are my views based on impressions. I did not systematically read a bunch of book reviews, do a content analysis, and then create a typology or something similarly rigorous. /3
Instead, this is just based on my impressions having read a good number of book reviews over the years and my own approach to writing them, based on those impressions and preferences. /4
What is the point of a book review? Some combination of (a) summarizing the book, (b) explaining its contributions to a particular audience (e.g., sociologists in general, sociologists of x, qualitative researchers, general public, policymakers), and… /6
(c) offering some critique (positive, negative, both). I might add: (d) reflecting on or making a larger point about the direction of a literature or style of research. /7
Sometimes, people (e) write because they have an ax to grind, but that’s not really an official purpose of book reviews–although it makes for interesting (entertaining) reviews. /8
What are different styles of book reviews? I can think of at least three:
A. Standard Review: Essentially a blow-by-blow overview of a book.
B. Thematic Review: A more general overview of the book.
C. Expert Review: What you can say when you are a full professor.
/9
While there are different styles of book review, they generally follow a similar outline: Intro, Middle, (Critique,) Conclusion. The Intro and Conclusion are pretty similar across the different styles. /10
The Intro: General overview paragraph introducing the topic of the book. Often, this paragraph is more about a general phenomenon and introduces the book itself in the middle or end of the paragraph. /11
The Conclusion: One-paragraph final thoughts. Often ends on a high note complimenting the book and/or its contribution to the literature. /12
If the conclusion is preceded by a critique, this is the time to walk it back/tone it down just a little and remind the reader (and the author) what was good about the book. /13
The Middle is where things get interesting. Let’s break it down. /14
A. (Standard Review) Middle paragraphs summarize the book a chapter at a time. These types of reviews sometimes allocate one paragraph per substantive chapter in the book. /15
This blow-by-blow summary is followed by a one-paragraph critique of book. It often includes three critiques, briefly provided, or a general critique elaborated across the paragraph. If the critique is brief, it can be folded in to the conclusion. /16
B. (Thematic Review) Middle paragraphs focus on several themes the reviewer wants to highlight. These might be methodological, theoretical, policy, etc. /17
The reviewer might select themes based on what they see as the book’s most important contributions, what they think will resonate most with the journal’s audience, or just what they found most compelling. /18
The critique may be folded into these middle paragraphs or follow them in the one-paragraph style (see above). /19
C. (Expert Review) Middle paragraphs might do more to situate the book in a larger literature or a series of works, including (sometimes) the book author’s prior work. The review itself might be less about the book and more about the larger literature. /20
The best of these reviews is double (or more) the standard review length and is part of a book symposium. Sometimes the critique is more pointed and even personal, particularly when big egos are involved. /21
Critiques might be scattered throughout or return at the end as the reviewer brings the review back to the book. /22
One big concern about writing book reviews is the fear of pissing off people–especially the book’s author. What if you don’t praise it enough? What if your critique really upsets them? What if you overstep? /23
First off, having your book reviewed is itself a good thing. If the review isn’t as glowing as the author would like, the fact that it is reviewed is important enough. Sure, there can be disappointment, but there is also gratitude for the time taken to review it at all. /24
Second, no one wants to read a review that just blows smoke up an author’s ass. /25
Readers want a clear, critical engagement with a text so they (a) know whether they should read more than the book’s intro, (b) know whether they might want to cite the book, and (c) get a bit of a leg up in thinking critically about the book (and its literature). /26
Third, if you are worried about saying something that really does piss off the author–say, you have a critique, but you are nervous about saying it publicly and permanently–you can have a colleague read it for you (this is where book review editors can also help out). /27
But here are some other rules of thumb: is your critique nit-picky? Are you tearing the author a new one for something kind of small? If so, modulate your critique. Note that your critique is small and insignificant. /28
And make sure to add what’s good about the book! You can offset a heavy critique with a strong, clear, positive statement about the book. /29
Finally, if you are nervous about making a critique, you can always say “group x might think blah-blah-blah while group y might think bluh-bluh-bluh.” Then you can say which group you think is right or not say your own opinion. /30
Personally, I like to point out what I think people might say as a critique and then defend the book against what I see as a problematic hot take. /31
However, if a book really needs to be criticized, do it. The author might not like it, but other readers usually appreciate having someone publicly say what’s necessary. But again, have some colleagues take a look first to make sure you aren’t being the asshole. /32
Some people have assholish takes on book reviews: namely, writing a book review is a sign that you don’t know the real currency of academia (peer-reviewed articles in top-tier journals). /33
I’d only agree with that if you write more book reviews than articles (e.g., if as a dissertating grad student in an article-based discipline, you’ve written two book reviews and no articles). /34
But, as @michellesphelps said, we should each be writing a review each 1-2 years. I do 1-2 every year. If you are early career (i.e., in your first two years post-PhD), stick to no more than one a year and then increase as you build up your paper pipeline. /35
Realistically, writing a book review is not going to stop you from regular peer-review article or getting your own book written. /36
So people who say writing book reviews will impact your ability to put in a good tenure file can fuck off. But appearances do matter, so don’t overdo it. /37=end
Ashley T. Rubin 