Defining and Assessing the
Book. Normally a review should summarize the
argument of the book, identify its strengths and weaknesses, and assess its contribution to a particular field. Note that stimulating reviews often spring from critical resistance to an argument or
interrogation of it--whenever they are
warranted. Feel free to question and challenge anything you don't
find fully convincing, or at least to explain what sorts of
resistance the book might provoke. For good examples of reviews that meet these criteria, see Mary Favret, George Levine, Patrick Fessenbecker, and
Michael Slater.
-
Contextualizing the Book. If you can, briefly explain the relation of the new book to one or more of the following: previous books by this author, other books recently published on the same topic, and one or more current debates about it. Framing the review in this way helps the reviewer get quickly and essentially to what is new about the book, and to say how it refines, challenges, or
re-shapes our present view of its topic.
Engaging the Audience. Striking a balance between specialized focus and breadth of
perspective, reviewers should feel free to engage specialized studies
in their own terms but should also point up--wherever possible--the
larger implications of any book under review. They should try, in
other words, to indicate what this book may offer to anyone
interested in nineteenth-century literature. Key terms known chiefly
to specialists should be either briefly explained or digitally linked
to other websites (see item D), and the prose should be readable (see
item L).
Digital Links. Reviewers can enhance their work by linking key words to explanations and
relevant documents furnished on other sites, especially The
Victorian Web and Nines. All the reviewer needs to do
is copy and paste the relevant web page after the key word, and we'll
do the rest. Alternatively, the reviewer may link to long
quotations posted at the end of the review by simply writing
"quotation #1, #2, etc." in parentheses (we'll do the
linking).
Images. The
title of every book reviewed on the site will be accompanied by a picture of the cover. In addition, reviewers may specify any images from the book
that they wish to discuss so that the site can obtain digital copies
from the publisher.
Citations. Use
no footnotes. Cite all sources parenthetically in a simplified MLA
Style as follows:
- Cite the book under review by page number alone (23).
- Cite other critical books by
author, short title, date, and (where necessary) page, skipping
author's name if already mentioned in the text and abbreviating
follow-up references:
Susan Wolfson, Borderlines (2006)
Jerome McGann, Fiery Dust (1968)
(Kenneth Johnston, The Hidden Wordsworth [1998] 56)
(HW 89)
- Cite short poems by title alone,
long poems and plays by title (unless already mentioned in text) and
relevant numbers:
(Prelude
[1850]: 6: 202-10) (Don Juan 2: 46) (Othello
3.2.46)
- Cite primary-source books by
author, short title, bracketed publisher and date where needed, and page:
(Stevenson, South Seas [Scribner's 1896] 81)
Length: Normally
1500-2500 words, not counting any quotations reduced by digital link to material furnished elsewhere on the site. Reviews may exceed 2500 words, but
reviewers should nonetheless aim for concision, avoiding
redundancy whenever possible. There is no need, for instance, to use
the full title of the book under review once it has been given at the
head of the review. It's quite enough to say "the present book"
or just use the author's name, as in "X here argues that . . ."
And there is seldom any need to quote chapter titles.
Timeliness.
Please submit your review within ninety days of receiving
of the book.
-
Heading and Ending. Begin
and end your review as shown here:
MICHAEL FERBER
ROMANTICISM: A VERY SHORT INTRODUCTION
(Oxford, 2010) xvi + 148 pp.
Reviewed by Richard Lansdown
[TEXT OF REVIEW DOUBLE SPACED]
[end]
Richard Lansdown (http://www.jcu.edu.au/sass/staff/JCUPRD_016487.html) is Associate Professor of English at James Cook University, Australia.
Put your name in red with the link to your web page (if you have one) right after it. This link will be embedded in your name when the review is posted.
Format. Please
submit the review as a Microsoft Word file attached to an email
message addressed to New.Books.Online.19@dartmouth.edu.
-
Readability. To help make your review as readable as possible, here are a few tips:
Start with a short, simple
sentence such as the one that opens Noah Comet's review of Shanyn Fiske's
Heretical Hellensism: "Hellenism has long been reserved
for men."
Break up a string of long
sentences with an occasional short one, and break the forward march of
declaratives with an occasional question. Why not?
Whenever possible, use verbs of
action rather than the verb to be:
recapitulates
The final chapter {is a recapitulation of } the previous ones.
Strive for concision, clarity,
and coherence.
-
Reviewing a Collection of Essays. As much as possible, identify the aims of the collection as a whole, the chief topics investigated, and the leading points of contention. Do not tamely summarize every single essay, one after another. Instead, showcase a few that best exemplify what the volume as a whole has to offer, and treat the others more briefly—in one or two sentences or less. For exemplary reviews of essay collections, see Elizabeth Helsinger and Laurence Davies.
-
Reviewing Editions of Letters or Diaries. Here the most important question to answer is what the diaries or letters tell us about the writer and his or her milieu.For exemplary reviews in this category, see Kenneth Johnston and Martin Meisel.
-
Proposing a Review. If you wish to propose a review, copy from the publisher’s website the title and description of the book, and along with your name, one page cv, and writing sample of not over 500 words, email it to New.Books.Online.19@dartmouth.edu
|