The aim of this essay is to examine the structure/s used in book reviews published in Quarterly Journal of Speech (QJS) with a view to recognizing how book reviews are written/formatted. The analysis is based on two multiple book reviews and five single book reviews.
The multiple book reviews start the reviews by ‘setting the scene’ for the analysis of the books under review. Each review devotes the first 2-3 pages of the review to a discussion of the common theme (the central concept that the books under review deal with) of the review (‘deliberative rhetoric and democracy’ in “deliberating rhetoric” and ‘social movement rhetoric’ in “Assessing Rhetorics of Social Resistance”). After this general discussion of the common theme, the reviewers recognize patterns in the books under review in terms of how they deal with the common theme. In the “deliberating Rhetoric” essay, the reviewer recognizes three patterns (one book for the first pattern and two books each for the other two patterns) and dedicates one separate section to each pattern. In the “Assessing Rhetorics of Social Resistance” essay, the reviewer recognizes each of the five books as representing one perspective on resistance and social change. These five perspectives are discussed under five different subheadings. While the former review is argument-based (focus on the main arguments presented by each book), the latter is mostly chapter-based (each section exclusively focusing on one book with an analysis of the chapters in the book in a linear fashion). The essays end with a summary of the main arguments discussed in the essay. In the “Assessing Rhetorics of Social Resistance” essay, the author goes beyond giving a summary of the arguments into emphasizing the need to go beyond the ‘social movement rhetoric’ model. This section demonstrates a greater agency of the reviewer.
Single book reviews start with a general, ‘scene-setting’ statement, which varies from one sentence to one short paragraph in length (e.g.: “Since 1996, the number of virtual communities within cyberspace has increased considerably” in “Virtual Communities”). This section is followed by a brief introduction to the book, its main goal (e.g.: “Paul casts a critical eye upon a culture ...” in “Empire of Sacrifice”), and sometimes also to the author/s of the book (e.g.: “Mike Hulme is a photographer who was asked to ... In 2010, Mulme was one of the fourteen co-authors of the Hartwell Paper, ...” in “Why We Disagree About Climate Change”). After this section, a substantial amount of the essay is devoted to an analysis of the book. While all the essays used a chapter-based approach to the analysis of the respective books, they differ in terms of the nature of the analysis; while some reviews basically summarize the main arguments presented by the books with a limited agency of the reviewer (e.g.: “Virtual Communities”), others inject greater reviewer agency to the summaries (e.g.: “Why We Disagree about Climate Change”). They essays end with a broader, more general comment on/assessment of the book.
While all the essays in question follow this structure, some essays incorporate additional features almost all of which appear after the initial general introduction to the respective book. Some essays include a section that states why the particular book is important, probably providing a justification of the choice of the book for the review (e.g.: “If its political passions too often outpace the scholarship, the book’s achievement lives in its invitation to consider carefully and honestly what we mean when we talk about religion, sacrifice, and violence” in “Empire of Sacrifice”). “Why We Disagree about Climate Change” has a section that discusses two audiences for which the book is intended. “Empire of Sacrifice” includes a section that defines certain key terms (from the book author’s perspective) used in the book (e.g.: “Because the term sacrifice is vital to the study, it is important to unpack what Paul means” and “Paul’s notion of American ‘empire of sacrifice’ connotes ...”). The essay on Before the Rhetorical Presidency (an edited work/a collection of essays) has a section that discusses certain dominant patterns found across the essays in the collection (e.g.: “Contributors – with the exception of Tulis himself – are unanimous: there was a rhetorical presidency during the nineteenth century.”).
The present paper recognizes the need for a greater agency of the reviewer in review. The review should present both a comprehensive summary of the main argument/s of the book/s under review and the reviewer’s assessment of those arguments. The reviewer should make her stance clear. In the case of the reviews that indicate a dissent from the book’s argument/s, the reviewer has the added responsibility of making clear the ‘starting points’/‘points of departure’ in terms of the theoretical and/or methodological background of the author and the reviewer. The paper also underscores the importance of the argument-based approach over the chapter-based approach, especially in the case of multiple book reviews and reviews of edited works/collections of essays. The paper also recognizes the need to spell out why the book/s in question worth reading/a review, define the key terms/concepts of a work from the book author/s’ perspective (especially in the case of the books that deal with vague or controversial issues), and identify any ‘common threads’ that run across the different books/chapters under review.
Cited Reviews
Bacon, J. (2011). Review of the book Political poetry as discourse: Rereading John Greenleaf Whittier, Ebenezer Elliott, and hip-hop-ology, by A. M. Leonard. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(3), 352-356.
Childers, J. P. (2008). Deliberating rhetoric [Review of the books Talking to stangers: Anxieties of citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education, by D. S. Allen; Pragmatism, democracy, and the necessity of rhetoric, by R. Danisch; Why deliberative democracy?, by A. Gutmann & D. Thompson; Rhetoric and the republic: Politics, civic discourse, and education in early America, by M. G. Longaker; and Talking about race: Community dialogues and the politics of difference, by K. C. Walsh]. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 94(4), 455-467.
Engels, J. (2011). Review of the book The rhetorical presidency, by M. J. Medhurst (Ed.). Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(1), 114-117.
Harness, L. (2011). Review of the book Virtual communities: Bowling alone, online together, by F. W. Song. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(1), 117-120.
Kurtz, J. B. (2011). Review of the book Empire of sacrifice: The religious origins of American violence, by J. Pahl. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(1), 120-124.
Ott, B. L. (2011). Assessing rhetorics of social resistance [Review of the books Transgression as a mode of resistance: Rethinking social movement in an era of corporate globalization, by C. Foust; OurSpace: Resisting the corporate control of culture, by C. Harold; In the wake of violence: Image and social reform, by C. R. Jorgensen-Earp; Everyday subversion: From joking to revolting in the German Democratic Republic; and Making camp: Rhetorics of transgression in US popular culture, by H. A. Shugart & C. E. Waggoner]. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(3), 334-347.
Svoboda, M. (2011). Review of the book Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity, by M. Hilme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(1), 125-129.
The multiple book reviews start the reviews by ‘setting the scene’ for the analysis of the books under review. Each review devotes the first 2-3 pages of the review to a discussion of the common theme (the central concept that the books under review deal with) of the review (‘deliberative rhetoric and democracy’ in “deliberating rhetoric” and ‘social movement rhetoric’ in “Assessing Rhetorics of Social Resistance”). After this general discussion of the common theme, the reviewers recognize patterns in the books under review in terms of how they deal with the common theme. In the “deliberating Rhetoric” essay, the reviewer recognizes three patterns (one book for the first pattern and two books each for the other two patterns) and dedicates one separate section to each pattern. In the “Assessing Rhetorics of Social Resistance” essay, the reviewer recognizes each of the five books as representing one perspective on resistance and social change. These five perspectives are discussed under five different subheadings. While the former review is argument-based (focus on the main arguments presented by each book), the latter is mostly chapter-based (each section exclusively focusing on one book with an analysis of the chapters in the book in a linear fashion). The essays end with a summary of the main arguments discussed in the essay. In the “Assessing Rhetorics of Social Resistance” essay, the author goes beyond giving a summary of the arguments into emphasizing the need to go beyond the ‘social movement rhetoric’ model. This section demonstrates a greater agency of the reviewer.
Single book reviews start with a general, ‘scene-setting’ statement, which varies from one sentence to one short paragraph in length (e.g.: “Since 1996, the number of virtual communities within cyberspace has increased considerably” in “Virtual Communities”). This section is followed by a brief introduction to the book, its main goal (e.g.: “Paul casts a critical eye upon a culture ...” in “Empire of Sacrifice”), and sometimes also to the author/s of the book (e.g.: “Mike Hulme is a photographer who was asked to ... In 2010, Mulme was one of the fourteen co-authors of the Hartwell Paper, ...” in “Why We Disagree About Climate Change”). After this section, a substantial amount of the essay is devoted to an analysis of the book. While all the essays used a chapter-based approach to the analysis of the respective books, they differ in terms of the nature of the analysis; while some reviews basically summarize the main arguments presented by the books with a limited agency of the reviewer (e.g.: “Virtual Communities”), others inject greater reviewer agency to the summaries (e.g.: “Why We Disagree about Climate Change”). They essays end with a broader, more general comment on/assessment of the book.
While all the essays in question follow this structure, some essays incorporate additional features almost all of which appear after the initial general introduction to the respective book. Some essays include a section that states why the particular book is important, probably providing a justification of the choice of the book for the review (e.g.: “If its political passions too often outpace the scholarship, the book’s achievement lives in its invitation to consider carefully and honestly what we mean when we talk about religion, sacrifice, and violence” in “Empire of Sacrifice”). “Why We Disagree about Climate Change” has a section that discusses two audiences for which the book is intended. “Empire of Sacrifice” includes a section that defines certain key terms (from the book author’s perspective) used in the book (e.g.: “Because the term sacrifice is vital to the study, it is important to unpack what Paul means” and “Paul’s notion of American ‘empire of sacrifice’ connotes ...”). The essay on Before the Rhetorical Presidency (an edited work/a collection of essays) has a section that discusses certain dominant patterns found across the essays in the collection (e.g.: “Contributors – with the exception of Tulis himself – are unanimous: there was a rhetorical presidency during the nineteenth century.”).
The present paper recognizes the need for a greater agency of the reviewer in review. The review should present both a comprehensive summary of the main argument/s of the book/s under review and the reviewer’s assessment of those arguments. The reviewer should make her stance clear. In the case of the reviews that indicate a dissent from the book’s argument/s, the reviewer has the added responsibility of making clear the ‘starting points’/‘points of departure’ in terms of the theoretical and/or methodological background of the author and the reviewer. The paper also underscores the importance of the argument-based approach over the chapter-based approach, especially in the case of multiple book reviews and reviews of edited works/collections of essays. The paper also recognizes the need to spell out why the book/s in question worth reading/a review, define the key terms/concepts of a work from the book author/s’ perspective (especially in the case of the books that deal with vague or controversial issues), and identify any ‘common threads’ that run across the different books/chapters under review.
Cited Reviews
Bacon, J. (2011). Review of the book Political poetry as discourse: Rereading John Greenleaf Whittier, Ebenezer Elliott, and hip-hop-ology, by A. M. Leonard. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(3), 352-356.
Childers, J. P. (2008). Deliberating rhetoric [Review of the books Talking to stangers: Anxieties of citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education, by D. S. Allen; Pragmatism, democracy, and the necessity of rhetoric, by R. Danisch; Why deliberative democracy?, by A. Gutmann & D. Thompson; Rhetoric and the republic: Politics, civic discourse, and education in early America, by M. G. Longaker; and Talking about race: Community dialogues and the politics of difference, by K. C. Walsh]. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 94(4), 455-467.
Engels, J. (2011). Review of the book The rhetorical presidency, by M. J. Medhurst (Ed.). Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(1), 114-117.
Harness, L. (2011). Review of the book Virtual communities: Bowling alone, online together, by F. W. Song. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(1), 117-120.
Kurtz, J. B. (2011). Review of the book Empire of sacrifice: The religious origins of American violence, by J. Pahl. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(1), 120-124.
Ott, B. L. (2011). Assessing rhetorics of social resistance [Review of the books Transgression as a mode of resistance: Rethinking social movement in an era of corporate globalization, by C. Foust; OurSpace: Resisting the corporate control of culture, by C. Harold; In the wake of violence: Image and social reform, by C. R. Jorgensen-Earp; Everyday subversion: From joking to revolting in the German Democratic Republic; and Making camp: Rhetorics of transgression in US popular culture, by H. A. Shugart & C. E. Waggoner]. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(3), 334-347.
Svoboda, M. (2011). Review of the book Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity, by M. Hilme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(1), 125-129.