Posted: March 16th, 2015

What are the author’s main points?

What are the author’s main points?
Again, these will often be stated in the introduction.
What kind of evidence does the author use to prove his
or her points?
Is the evidence convincing? Why or why not? Does the
author support his or her points ad
equately?
How does this book relate to other books on the same
topic?
Is the book unique? Does it add new information? What
group of readers, if any, would find this book most
useful?
Does the author have the necessary expertise to write
the book?
What credentials or background does the author have
that qualify him or her to write the book? Has the author
written other books or papers on this topic? Do others in
this field consider this author to be an expert?
What are the most appropriate criter
ia by which to
judge the book?
How successful do you think the
author was in carrying out the overall purposes of the
book?
Depending on your book’s purpose, you should select
appropriate criteria by which to judge its success. Use
any criteria your in
structor has given you in lecture or on
your assignment sheet. Otherwise, here are some criteria
to consider.
For example, if an author says his or her purpose is to
argue for a particular solution to a public problem, then
the review should judge whethe
r the author has defined
the problem, identified causes, planned points of attack,
provided necessary background information, and offered
specific solutions. A review should also indicate the
author’s professional expertise.
In other books, however, the
authors may argue for their
theory about a particular phenomenon. Reviews of these
books should evaluate what kind of theory the book is
arguing for, how much and what kind of evidence the
author uses to support his or her scholarly claims, how
valid the
evidence seems, how expert the author is, and
how much the book contributes to the knowledge of the
field.
Writing the Book Review
Book reviews generally include the following kinds of
information; keep in mind, though, that you may need to
include other
information to explain your assessment of a
book.
Most reviews start off with a
heading
that includes all the
bibliographic information about the book. If your
assignment sheet does not indicate which form you
should use, you can use the following:
Tit
le
. Author. Place of publication:
publisher, date of publication. Number
of pages.
Like most pieces of writing, the review itself usually
begins with an
introduction
that lets your readers know
what the review will say. The first paragraph usually
inc
ludes the author and title again, so your readers don’t
have to look up to find this information. You should also
include a very brief overview of the contents of the book,
the purpose or audience for the book, and your reaction
and evaluation.
You shoul
d then move into a section of
background
information
that helps place the book in context and
discusses criteria for judging the book.
Next, you should give a
summary
of the main points of
the book, quoting and paraphrasing key phrases from the
author.
Fi
nally, you get to the heart of your review
—
your
evaluation
of the book. In this section, you might discuss
some of the following issues:
•
how well the book has achieved its goal
•
what possibilities are suggested by the book
•
what the book has left out
•
how the book compares to others on the subject
•
what specific points are not convincing
•
what personal experiences you’ve had related to the
subject.
It is important to use labels to carefully distinguish your
views from the author’s, so that you don
’t confuse your
reader.
Then, like other essays, you can end with a
direct comment
on the book, and tie together issues raised in the review
in a conclusion.
There is, of course, no set formula, but
a general rule of
thumb is that the first one
–
half to t
wo
–
thirds of the
review should summarize the author’s main ideas and
at least one
–
third should evaluate the book.
Check with
your instructor.
Example
Below is a review of
Taking Soaps Seriously
by Michael
Intintoli, written by Ruth Rosen in the
Journal
of
Communication
. Note that Rosen begins with a context for
Intintoli’s book, showing how it is different from other
books about soap operas. She finds a strength in the kind
of details that his methodology enables him to see.
However, she disagrees wit
h his choice of case study. All
in all, Rosen finds Intintoli’s book most useful for
novices, but not one that advances our ability to critique
soap operas very much.
Taking Soaps Seriously: The World of Guiding Light
.
Michael Intintoli. New York: Pra
eger, 1984. 248 pp.
Ever since the U.S. public began listening to radio
soaps in the 1930s, cultural critics have explored the
content, form, and popularity of daytime serials.
Today, media critics take a variety of approaches.
Some explore audience re
sponse and find that,
depending on sex, race, or even nationality, people
“decode” the same story in different ways. Others
regard soaps as a kind of subversive form of popular
culture that supports women’s deepest grievances.
Still others view the soap
as a “text” and attempt to
“deconstruct” it, much as a literary critic dissects a
work of literature. Michael Intintoli’s project is
somewhat different. For him, the soap is a cultural
product mediated and created by corporate interests.
It is the produ
ction of soaps, then, that is at the center
of his
Taking Soaps Seriously
.
To understand the creation of soap operas, Intintoli
adopted an ethnographic methodology that required
a rather long siege on the set of “Guiding Light.”
Like a good anthropologis
t, he picked up a great deal
about the concerns and problems that drive the
production of a daily soap opera. For the novice
there is much to be learned here . . . .
But the book stops short of where it should ideally
begin. In many ways, “Guiding Light
” was simply
the wrong soap to study. First broadcast in 1937,
“Guiding Light” is the oldest soap opera in the
United States, owned and produced by Procter and
Gamble, which sells it to CBS. It is therefore the
perfect soap to study for a history of the
changing
daytime serial. But that is not Intintoli’s
project . . . .
Taking Soaps Seriously
is a good introduction to the
production of the daily soap opera. It analyzes soap
conventions, reveals the hierarchy of soap
production, and describes a sli
ce of the corporate
production of mass culture.
Regrettably, it reads like an unrevised dissertation
and misses an important opportunity to probe the
changing nature of soap production and the
unarticulated ideological framework in which soaps
are created
.
Polishing the Book Review
After you’ve completed your review, be sure to
proofread it carefully for errors and typos. Double
–
check
your bibliographic heading
—
author, title, publisher
—
for
accuracy and correct spelling as well.
For
free
help at an
y stage of the writing process:
Writing Tutorial Services
Wells Library Information Commons
Indiana University
855
–
6738
www.indiana.edu/~wts/
See our website for hours, times, and locations
Revised
08/11/11
Writing
Book
Reviews
A book review t
ells not only what a book is about, but
also how successfully the book explains itself. Professors
often assign book reviews as practice in careful, analytical
reading.
As a reviewer, you bring together the two strands of
accurate, analytical reading and
strong, personal
response when you indicate what the book is about and
what it might mean to a reader (by explaining what it
meant to you). In other words, reviewers answer not
only the
what
but the
so what
question about a book.
Thus, in writing a revi
ew, you combine the skills of
describing
what is on the page,
analyzing
how the book
tried to achieve its purpose, and
expressing
your own
reactions.
Reading the Book
As you are reading or preparing to write the review, ask
yourself these questions:
Wha
t are the author’s viewpoint and purpose?
Are they appropriate? The viewpoint or purpose may be
implied rather than stated, but often a good place to look
for what the author says about his or her purpose and
viewpoint is the introduction or preface.

Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking
Malcolm Gladwell
Blink: The Power of
Thinking Without Thinking
Author: Malcolm Gladwell
Category: Art of Living
Other name: Diana C.
Website: http://motsach.info
Date: 14-October-2012
Page 1/127
http://motsach.info
Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking
Malcolm Gladwell
Introduction – The Statue That Didn’t Look Right
In September of 1983, an art dealer by the name of Gianfranco Becchina approached the J.
Paul Getty Museum in California. He had in his possession, he said, a marble statue dating from
the sixth century BC. It was what is known as a kouros-a sculpture of a nude male youth
standing with his left leg forward and his arms at his sides. There are only about two hundred
kouroi in existence, and most have been recovered badly damaged or in fragments from grave
sites or archeological digs. But this one was almost perfectly preserved. It stood close to seven
feet tall. It had a kind of light-colored glow that set it apart from other ancient works. It was an
extraordinary find. Becchina’s asking price was just under $10 million.
The Getty moved cautiously. It took the kouros on loan and began a thorough investigation. Was
the statue consistent with other known kouroi? The answer appeared to be yes. The style of the
sculpture seemed reminiscent of the Anavyssos kouros in the National Archaeological Museum
of Athens, meaning that it seemed to fit with a particular time and place. Where and when had
the statue been found? No one knew precisely, but Becchina gave the Getty’s legal department
a sheaf of documents relating to its more recent history. The kouros, the records stated, had
been in the private collection of a Swiss physician named Lauffenberger since the 1930s, and
he in turn had acquired it from a well-known Greek art dealer named Roussos.
A geologist from the University of California named Stanley Margolis came to the museum and
spent two days examining the surface of the statue with a high-resolution stereomicroscope. He
then removed a core sample measuring one centimeter in diameter and two centimeters in
length from just below the right knee and analyzed it using an electron microscope, electron
microprobe, mass spectrometry, X-ray diffraction, and X-ray fluorescence. The statue was made
of dolomite marble from the ancient Cape Vathy quarry on the island of Thasos, Margolis
concluded, and the surface of the statue was covered in a thin layer of calcite-which was
significant, Margolis told the Getty, because dolomite can turn into calcite only over the course
of hundreds, if not thousands, of years. In other words, the statue was old. It wasn’t some
contemporary fake.
The Getty was satisfied. Fourteen months after their investigation of the kouros began, they
agreed to buy the statue. In the fall of 1986, it went on display for the first time. The New York
Times marked the occasion with a front-page story. A few months later, the Getty’s curator of
antiquities, Marion True, wrote a long, glowing account of the museum’s acquisition for the art
journal The Burlington Magazine. “Now standing erect without external support, his closed
hands fixed firmly to his thighs, the kouros expresses the confident vitality that is characteristic
of the best of his brothers.” True concluded triumphantly, “God or man, he embodies all the
radiant energy of the adolescence of western art.”
The kouros, however, had a problem. It didn’t look right. The first to point this out was an Italian
art historian named Federico Zeri, who served on the Getty’s board of trustees. When Zeri was
taken down to the museum’s restoration studio to see the kouros in December of 1983, he
found himself staring at the sculpture’s fingernails. In a way he couldn’t immediately articulate,
they seemed wrong to him. Evelyn Harrison was next. She was one of the world’s foremost
Page 2/127
http://motsach.info

 PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂