Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

CRITICAL REVIEW ESSAY GUIDELINES (Book review) Write an essay of 5-6 pages 1500-1800 words, double spaced, that identifies the primary arguments and logics of the assigned book and then MAKES A CLEAR AND WELL SUPPORTED logical argument about that book. You are writing a critical review essay: do NOT summarize and agree. Your first paper is on: Author: Gordon Martel Book: Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered Submit electronically as an MS WORD document via the Blackboard Assignments tab. Do NOT convert to pdf or any other format. Logistical 1. Your papers should be 5-6 full pages long. If you have more to say, fine -- I′ll be happy to read as much as you give me. Less than 5 is getting to a problem and less than 4 will result in significant deductions. 2. Proofread! Since I′m going to read a lot of papers, I don′t want to waste my time wading through work that you′ve just thrown together. Therefore, you must give yourself time to proofread your work. I′ll tolerate one typographic error per page -- but when I hit the sixth typo, I′ll start taking off one point per mistake. PROOFREAD! 3. The papers must be typed, double spaced, 12-point, normal font, with margins no larger than the standard Word default margins (left, right, top, and bottom margins no larger than one inch). Please use page numbers and a cover/title page. 4. If you′re unsure that your grammar is correct, take your paper to the writing center and ask for help. The folks at the writing center do a very good job, and you′ll be doing yourself a favor by acquiring a necessary and important set of writing skills. If I find that your grammar and style could use some work, I′ll ask you to go to the writing center. You can always ask me! Substantive 1. No more than two pages of your paper should be summary of the author′s arguments. Most, or preferably all, or your paper should be critical analysis. Even a flawed or simplistic analysis, where you think about the material yourself and draw your own conclusions and insights from it, will earn a better grade than the most well-written, sophisticated paper that′s just a rehash of the book. 2. Analysis simply means drawing out arguments and themes that the author makes, either implicitly or explicitly, and expressing what you think is most interesting, useful, ridiculous, appalling, etc., about them. Keep in mind that authors don′t always make even their main arguments explicit -- you may have to do some thinking to figure out what the book is really trying to say. You don′t necessarily have to encompass the entire book; if there are one or two sub-themes that strike you as most important, then focus on those. 4. It might help to ask the following questions while you read (obviously you can′t answer all these questions in every five-page paper; these are just suggestions for ways to think about the book as you read it): * What is the major argument(s) the author is making? What kind of cause --˃ effect relationships does the author assert or hypothesize, either explicitly or implicitly? For each chapter, and then for the entire book, try to summarize the argument in two or three sentences. * What are the assumptions, either theoretical or policy-oriented, the author is making to advance his main points? If the assumptions were changed, how would the book′s main arguments be different? Sometimes (actually, most of the time), the author doesn′t explicitly state what those assumptions are -- but the good ones do. * What kind of evidence does the author use to support the book′s arguments (interviews, personal experience, newspaper and journal articles, speeches, etc.)? Are the arguments convincingly backed up with evidence, or are you expected just to take the author′s word for it? * Are there subthemes -- ideas that, although they′re not the main subject of the text, still pervade the book -- that the author doesn′t draw out explicitly? * If the arguments are theoretical ones, how do they relate to actual incidents and cases you know about? Conversely, if the arguments are practical ones, how do they relate to the theoretical perspectives we′ve studied? 5. Make sure you have a subject and verb in every sentence. 6. A long sentence is not necessarily a better sentence -- each sentence should express only one thought. Don′t be afraid to break up a long sentence into two or three shorter ones. It will usually flow better that way. 7. Make an argument in the paper, preferably one that answers a question starting with the word ″why.″ Do not simply recite facts and figures; I can look those up myself. I′m interested in your opinions and in what you think is the most interesting way to frame a topic or an issue. 8. Make sure that the reader of your paper knows (1) what your analysis/argument is, and (2) how you′re going to go about supporting that analysis/argument, all within the first couple of paragraphs of the paper. In other words -- STATE YOUR MAIN POINT/CONCLUSIONS, WITH A SUMMARY OF YOUR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, UP FRONT…FIRST PARAGRAPH! The first page of your paper should provide your reader with a ″road map.″ Try something like, “In this paper, I argue that…” or “This paper argues…” You are not writing a mystery novel -- the reader will understand what you′re trying to convey more easily if he has some idea what′s coming as he reads through the body of the paper. Don′t be afraid to repeat yourself as a consequence. 9. As you make the points that support your argument, you′ll probably be aware of the places in which your argument is controversial or in which a reasonable person might disagree with you. Preempt those controversies in your text. Point out what those opposing arguments might be, and why you think your point of view is more accurate or reasonable…only if you have the time and space. 10. Don′t use a bigger word when a smaller one will do. One of my pet peeves is the word ″utilize″ -- why not just say ″use″? Of course, if a five-syllable word is the only way to convey your meaning, then by all means use (not utilize!) it, but remember, I′m interested in the content and sophistication of your ideas and analysis, not your skill in using a thesaurus. 11. Don′t use a lot of direct quotes from the book. Your own analysis comes through if you paraphrase the work instead of quoting it directly. If you do quote, you must cite (I′m not picky about formats). And, if you rely on other material you′ve read in formulating your own analysis, you must cite that material in as well. It may be tempting, particularly in a course of this nature, simply to repeat back someone else′s analysis of the subject at hand and call it your own. Please keep in mind that (a) I′m no idiot; I can tell the difference between your work and work that′s been through a professional editing and publishing process; and (b) I read a lot; it′s quite possible that I′ll recognize the material you′re using. I will not be tolerant of plagiarism. The first time it happens, I′ll take it directly through the university honor code process. The very simple way to avoid problems is to footnote another folks′ work that you rely on. 12. While I don’t want you to “agree” with WHATEVER AUTHOR, I do want a critical assessment that you glean from the reading. If you tend to agree with significant points of the argument, that is a-okay…but focus on depth, extent, breadth of Weiss’s argument. Does he go far enough? Too far? What about methodology? Is the sample size good—too big, too small, etc.? Don’t simply agree. 13. Finally, make sure you are writing about THE ASSIGNED book, THEIR argument. Your own argument should be a critical assessment of the author/book. Keep that in mind. extra notes: You need to describe the arguments you intend to make in the thesis. DO this up front, early in the paper. Don′t have a thesis that basically says, ″this paper will argue that there ARE weaknesses.″ PERIOD. DO argue that the most compelling weaknesses of the book are, 1, 2, and 3. EXPLAIN THEM.