Over the past month, I have carefully corrected the mid-term reports of two courses in the History Department, General History of China IV and History of Cultural Exchanges between the East and the West, word for word. The content of the report is to ask students to write a book review about special books. It turns out that our students have great problems about how to write a complete paragraph sentence, not to mention asking them to write a critical book review. I think our students make such mistakes, and as teachers, we have to bear most of the responsibility. Maybe we believe too much that every student takes it for granted how to read or comment on a book. But do these sophomores really know how to write book reviews? I don't think so. After carefully correcting students' homework, I found that most students are still quite confused about how to write book reviews. Not only do they not know how to lay out critical sentences, but even sentences with reading guidance are incomplete. In fact, these students can't tell the difference between a book review and a report. Most students said that the teacher did not revise the previous book review or report word for word. Obviously, they are not used to this form of correcting homework, which naturally makes them ignorant of the mistakes in their articles. Personally, the first job of a book reviewer is not to make a simple summary of the contents of the book, but to write a review of a book. In fact, book reviewers should not only report the content; And put forward views on the advantages and disadvantages of this book. To put it simply, book reviewers should follow two principles: first, tell readers the contents of the book; The second is to provide readers with comments on this book. Below, I have synthesized some academic views on how to write book reviews and summarized several key points, hoping to help students who want to write book reviews.

First, the principles of book review writing

* Carefully choose an academic book that you can comment on within your ability.

* A book review should concisely describe the content of the book, and more importantly, make an in-depth analysis and evaluation of the concept and purpose of the book.

* The narrative element of book review should be to let readers know the author's argument, and the content of book review should be a detailed evaluation of the concept of the book.

* Before reading, reviewers should know something about this book.

* Pay attention to the headings and subheadings. See how you judge the idea of this book through these titles. Study the content and chapter titles to understand how the author organizes these contents.

* Understand the author's motivation and purpose of writing this book by reading the "preface" or "introduction".

* Have a preliminary understanding of the author, collect information about the author, do some research, and understand the authority of the theme of the book written by the author.

* Your introduction should include an overview of the book, which is a condensed summary and your overall judgment of the book. The abstract of the book should not exceed one-third of the full text of the book review. Generally speaking, Chinese book reviews are 3500 words, and English book reviews are about 1500 words.

* When writing a book review, don't just mention whether you like or don't like the book; But also tell your readers why they like it or not.

It is not enough to say "this book is interesting", you must explain "why it is interesting or not".

In order to understand your attitude towards this book, you must read it carefully and critically.

As a critical reader, your role is not passive. You should ask some questions and respond after reading this book.

* What question is the author trying to answer? How does the author answer his question? In what way does the author discuss the main idea of this book? What other possible ways to answer the main questions in this book? Is there anything missing from the author's answer? Do you have any objection to the author's argument? What are the differences between the questions and answers raised in this book and other historical works you are familiar with?

* Unless you have become an experienced and authoritative book reviewer, it is best not to look for other book reviews as a reference at first, which will easily affect your thoughts.

Second, the structure of book review

The structure of book reviews can usually be roughly divided into three parts, which beginners can use as norms. After they are familiar with this, they can change the structure and paragraphs at will.

(1) Introduction: In this part, the book reviewer must explain how the research theme and arguments of this book have contributed to history. Through this passage, readers who read your book review will have a good initial impression on this book.

(2) Book review subject: In this part, you must describe the opinions put forward by the author of this book. What is the basis of the author? Remember, this part is not a summary of the whole book, but provides readers with a more detailed summary of the whole book through some of the following three "How to design problems". If only one chapter outline is provided for the whole book, it is a very boring practice (note: chapter by chapter introduction actually includes my early book reviews, and many scholars can't help writing book reviews like this. I have tried to avoid this kind of introduction now. So be sure to focus the book review on two or three important points you think of this book, such as trying to ask the author how to put forward his point of view. What is the relationship between his views and those of ordinary historians?

(3) In the conclusion part, the focus of book reviewers is book review. You should list in detail the author's shortcomings in the use of historical materials, the types of evidence used, the historical analysis provided by the author, and finally make a summary. The best way is to report the advantages and disadvantages, achievements and shortcomings of this book in a balanced way.

Third, how to design the problem

The following questions are designed to provide reference for book reviewers when asking questions. You don't have to answer all the questions, but it is necessary to design at least one or two in the book review. These questions are irrelevant. It is not necessary to answer only one question in one paragraph and then answer another question in another. Your answer should be very careful to use topic sentences and conversion sentences to construct your book review. Your title should be pleasing to the ear and easy to remember, and the sentences should attract readers' interest, so that readers will be interested in reading the rest of your comments.

(1) What's your overall opinion of this book? What are the arguments for the ideas expounded in this book? In other words, you must tell the reader what you think and how to judge. When you pick up this book and read the preface, what do you expect from it? To what extent does this book meet your expectations? What feedback do you expect from the author? Finally, further state your reaction to this book.

(2) Confirm the author's paper and interpret it in his own language. How are these topics clearly stated, in what context, and what is the subsequent development? To what extent have these topics been proved and how effective are they? Book reviewers should quote examples from the book appropriately to further elaborate your answer. What do you think should be done if some arguments or opinions are omitted from this book?

(3) What is the author's purpose? Are these purposes tenable or justified? What paragraphs or sentences in the book can make you react strongly? What words or sentences are there? What's your response?

(4) What do you think are the main arguments put forward, explained and supported by the author? What are the assumptions behind these arguments? What are your most effective ways to condense or reorganize the suggestions put forward and debated by the author?

(5) What is the author's research method? Confirm the author's assumptions about the research direction and writing in the book. For example, what important knowledge does the author want readers to have? What assumptions do you think the author should not make? Why?

(6) What is the time limit for the author's discussion? What geographical areas are covered?

(7) What historical research methods did the author use? Social history, knowledge history, cultural history, ideological history or economic history, etc.

(8) What historical materials did the author use? Official history, archives, local chronicles, anthologies, notes, medical books, newspapers, local documents and so on.

(9) What new horizons do you have after reading this book? Have you ever changed your world outlook? If so, why? If not, what is it for?

(10) Do you think the author's statement is fair and correct? Is its explanation well founded? Have you learned about new methods of history through this book?

(1 1) What do you think of the author?

(12) What do you recommend? Do you think other readers will enjoy reading this book? What have you gained from reading this book? If you have a negative opinion of this book, please tell the reader the reason why you don't like it.

(13) What are the shortcomings of this book? What problems have not been solved?

Fourth, writing style guide.

According to the notes for writing papers published in the rhetoric course of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), when writing book reviews, book reviewers should pay attention to the following points when writing sentences: Please write book reviews in academic language (imagine that your readers are thoughtful professionals). Papers should be concise and easy to read (there should be a clear connection between concepts). Papers should be accurate, clear, vivid and interesting. Make good use of vivid metaphors, especially when you want to resonate with readers. Please change your sentence structure, sentence length and basic elements. Read your paper aloud and feel its rhythm. Use easy-to-remember words to state important concepts. Make good use of stylistic resources in rhetoric to show your literary spirit.

Correct use of grammar and writing skills. At the paper level, academic papers should be as objective as possible. For example, avoid using the first person singular: I (I), my addressee (I), my (mine), and related terms such as "I think", "I think" and "I believe"; Such terms are rarely used now, and most academic papers will deliberately avoid using such terms (exception: when discussing their own experiences and writing personal persuasive papers, the first person singular should be used). Use the first person plural: "we", "our" and "our addressee". The first person plural is preferred to the more formal and distant third person (which should be avoided unless specially specified by the professor or editor). The first-person plural has at least two additional advantages: you can build relationships with readers and avoid using the passive voice too much. Try to avoid the second person calling you. The second person will bring the reader into your paper, but it will also push the reader away from your mind.

At the paragraph level, academic book reviews advocate that a paragraph should fully develop an idea. In addition, each paragraph should have obvious topic sentences (95% of the topic sentences will be the first sentence of each paragraph). However, sometimes for some special reasons, you can put the topic sentence at the last sentence of a paragraph. Ensure that every sentence in the paragraph is used to directly explain, support, prove, clarify or describe the ideas in the topic sentence; There is no other noise in this paragraph. Putting irrelevant things casually will only destroy the integrity of the paragraph. Develop each paragraph completely, for example, a paragraph with only two or three sentences is likely to be underdeveloped (unless the function of the paragraph is to connect up and down, or to summarize the ideas mentioned in the previous paragraph).

At the sentence level, 98% of the sentences in academic papers are complete sentences. Sentence length should be changed (some short, some long, some moderate). Sentence patterns should be changed (simple sentences, connecting complex sentences, subordinate complex sentences and connecting-subordinate complex sentences should be mixed). The use of basic elements needs to be changed. In terms of words, academic papers should be professional but not grandiose. Avoid using slang and popular expressions in advertisements or songs. Try to avoid using technical terms.

(If your readership includes non-professionals and you must use technical terms in your subject, please pay attention to the meaning of the terms). Don't use words found in the synonym dictionary unless you carefully confirm their true meaning with the dictionary first.