HIS 332 – Prompt and Utter Destruction

HIS 332 – Prompt and Utter Destruction

Subject: History / General History
Question
Critical Book Review 2
Source
Samuel Walker. Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan. (University of North Carolina Press, 2005) ISBN: 978-0807856079

Review
Students are required to complete two critical book reviews over assigned novels. The critical book reviews shall develop the studentâs skills in reading and analyzing historical monographs and articles, and primary sources. To assist in bringing the critical book review into a sub-field of history, the student will be required to read and integrate a minimum of three articles from major historical journals (JSTOR, American Historical Review, Reviews in American History and/or Journal of American History) into the critical book reviews. The reviews will be typed, double-spaced, font size of 12, Times New Roman typeset, citations in proper Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition) [history majors] or MLA Style (6th Edition) [non-history majors] including a properly formatted bibliography (does not count toward the total word count required), proper grammar, punctuation, spelling, margins of one-inch on all four sides, contain a proper title page (as attached to this syllabus), page numbered, be submitted in Microsoft Word prior to 2359 hours on the assigned due date of this particular assignment, and be 1,000-1,500 words. The student is held responsible for fully understanding what constitutes plagiarism, and Park Universityâs and the professorâs regulations regarding consequences of plagiarism detection and fabrication.

Total Possible on each Assignment: 50 points

Critical Book Review Format
The object of writing a book review, of 1,000-1,500 words, on a historical text is to point out the conclusions that the author presents in the work, and to assess the validity of the conclusions.

Writing a book review as an assignment in a history course has at least four important objectives:

Effective writing;
A substantive knowledge about a particular historical topic;
An understanding of the nature and use of historical research; and
An ability to think critically about the work of others.
A book review goes beyond mere summary to inquire into the overall worth of a work.

In order to do a competent review, it is best to read quickly through the novel for general content, noting anything that seems significant and/or controversial. Then go back and consider more thoroughly the basic structure and thesis of the work. As you are reading, keep several questions in mind:

What is the subject and purpose of the work (general text, new interpretation, propaganda)?
How qualified is the author to deal with the topic? Find out about the authorâs education and past experience in order to judge whether he/she is especially qualified as an expert in the field.
What is the authorâs point of view on the subject? Try to discern if there are any reasons why the author may be presenting a biased approach.
How does the authorâs point of view compare with that of other historians who have written on the same topic?
How valid is the authorâs point of view and how competently is the argument presented?
Assess how important the work is in relation to the material already available on the subject and whether the author has fulfilled the purpose for which the work was intended.
Remember, you are posing as an expert and it is your job to be critical. However, do not expect the author to have written the work you have in mind. Pay particular attention to what the author says is the focus of the work in the Introduction and judge how well the stated goals are carried out.

Organization of a Book Review
When quoting from or referring to a particular section of the work you are reviewing, give the page number in a formal citation. If you draw upon other resources, be sure you cite according to the proper format.

You are not held to any specific order in presenting your review. However, you will find that it is helpful to check that you have discussed the following in some logical sequence:

Statement of the purpose and general content of the work.
Discussion in detail of the authorâs main conclusions and an assessment of their validity, including a comment on sources and a comparison with other authors.
Overall assessment of the value of the work to historical literature and of the merits and shortcomings of the work as you see them.
The following outline is only a suggestion
Introduction
Purpose of the work.
Authorâs Qualifications and Viewpoint.
Critical Summary
Thesis of the Work.
Summary of contents, indicating how the thesis is developed (Use examples. While this will generally be the longest part of the review, you should make sure that your review does not become a mere summary without analysis)
Style and Presentation
Organization of the Work.
Writing Style (word choice, paragraph structure, readability, and length)
Conclusion
Historical contribution of the work (How does the work fit into the prevailing interpretation of the subject? Does it break new ground? Does it answer a troublesome question? Does it revise older interpretations? Does it merely clarify and simplify the standard point of view?)
Overall worth of the work (Would you recommend the work? For what type of audience would it be best suited? Did the author accomplish his/her purpose?)
When we are familiar with the format and the hidden meanings of sentences we know that we are reading a particular text genre â in this case a book review. Essentially we can always tell we are reading a book review from the language and the structure that it employs. Writers of book reviews typically progress through four stages, as follows:

1. They introduce the book by
outlining the general topic
indicating who the book is for
placing the book in its field.
2. Next, they often outline the content of the book by
giving a general view of its the organization
stating the topic of each chapter/section.
3. Then they highlight parts of the book by
selecting particular chapters or themes for evaluation
critiquing the argument of the book.
4. And finally, they evaluate the book by
commenting on aspects of the content
indicating how it meets the readersâ needs
remarking on its format, price, and value for money
making recommendations for purchase or otherwise.
Some of the things said about such reviews were that they were:

pointless, uninformative, indecisive and boring
a mere listing of the contents
pretentious, unkind, careless
personally abusive about the authorâs credentials
written to cherish the reviewerâs ego.
Generally speaking, book reviews were not highly regarded if they simply outlined the content of a book, in a chapter by chapter format. On the other hand, approximately 55 per cent of the respondents recalled reading an outstanding book review. Here it was thought that such reviews:

gave a balanced critical evaluation of the text
made seemingly dull topics interesting
were well written, succinct, and informative
displayed awesome scholarship
made people want to buy the book.