Reviews will appear at least once a month and be no more than a thousand words each. Ideally, they will be much closer to five hundred words but books vary in breadth and scope and reviews should, too.

Most of what I read revolves around current research projects, but I tend to wander beyond my areas of interest into more general history and current events while also keeping up with recently released fact and fiction.

Some reviews will be more academic than others (as the subject demands), but my point of departure (or basis for title selection) will not be any form of expertise — well, other than as an avid book reader with a moderate attention span and an affection for declarative sentences.

And since I have been teaching for a few years now and tutor individual students, I thought I would share the template for the series while breaking down the core elements of a review at the same time.

CORE ELEMENTS OF A REVIEW

Books reviews are supposed to be challenging.

Reviewers must often relate highly specialized research or work in a broad way while making a direct effort to avoid alienating both experts and the general public.

They have to be critical without engaging in personal attacks or trespassing over the author’s credentials, experience, and intent.

And they also have to avoid retelling or replicating the contents of the book in question — after all, why should I read it if you’re going to do that for me?

Below are the five inescapable, core elements of a review. I have arranged them in a complimentary order that makes the most sense to me but you could rearrange the middle three to reflect your own approach.

+ What is it about and what does it argue?

+ What content or evidence does it offer and is it effective?

+ What are its strengths and weaknesses?

+ Where does it fit into the existing literature?

+ Why read it?

OTHER THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND

Less is more — Answering any of these questions can take as little as a single declarative sentence without any punctuation apart from a single period. But that’s a bit brief, so feel free to help yourself to a whole paragraph. Still, be sure to keep your answers as concise and direct as possible.

It’s not about you — There’s a lot of pressure to make reviews about you: perhaps by including some story of how you came to read the book in question, your expertise on the subject, or some personal anecdote about the author. However, it isn’t your book and you should hold out on writing yourself into the review. And even if the book in question does relate to your expertise, keep in mind that the book isn’t about your expertise.

Analysis over description — of course, spoiling the plot doesn’t apply to fact like it does fiction, but you should still avoid describing things at all cost. Analysis is much more effective. And feel free to allude to things — either the reader will find out later when they read the book, or they won’t and it doesn’t matter.

SAMPLE REVIEWS

A Comicbook Orange (ACO) — happens to be a video podcast about comic books but it’s still the best short review available in any medium! It is concise, engaging, and superbly written. And what I like most is how it slays the perception that comic appreciation (read: any appreciation) is all fanfare by leveling relevant, well-founded criticism on their weekly selection of titles.

It’s probably one of the best examples for students learning how to be critical of art and literature and likely one of the most under-appreciated reviews out there.

Literary Review of Canada (LRC) — is a print magazine in Canada with a keen eye for typography (read: it’s pretty and uncluttered) that offers a monthly series of reviews from various authors, intellectuals, and public officials on a wide variety of fact and fiction.

Their reviews tend to more lengthy than what you’ll find in other magazines and newspapers but offer less gimmicky — please, please, please read our review section — filler by including more contextual or historical information. In other words, their approach is less should you read this book? and more how does this book change our perspective about? …well, whatever it’s about.

Canadian Historical Review (CHR) — specializes in short reviews by members of a select community (in this case, the Canadian historical community) much like other academic journals. Their approach has a near-perfect balance between general and specialized information — meaning, in other words, that readers from different fields, students, and the public could find them, if not equally useful, then certainly equally accessible.

They also help demonstrate a type of peer review that illustrates less of a personal assessment of the reviewer’s expertise and more an example of different ways of exploring topics, discussing themes, and solving problems.

NOTE

(1) I will be updating this regularly based on feedback from students.

(2) Titles selected for review in this series are not paid endorsements.

Last updated: Saturday 8 May 2010.

My posts will primarily explore history and the internet by drawing on some of the more recent debates, services, sites, and web trends that might be relevant or particularly useful to the historical community in general.

My first post, for example, explores how short URLs could potentially rein in run-away links in things like course materials, endnotes/footnotes, and finding aides both online and off.

I’ve been keeping up with ActiveHistory.ca since they started following me on Twitter a while back and jumped at the chance to join them because I respect their approach and identify with their purpose:

We define active history variously as history that listens and is responsive; history that will make a tangible difference in people’s lives; history that makes an intervention and is transformative to both practitioners and communities. We seek a practice of history that emphasizes collegiality, builds community among active historians and other members of communities, and recognizes the public responsibilities of the historian.

Building community is why projects like ActiveHistory.ca are important and the reason I’m excited to work more closely with them over the coming months.

I know that hardly sounds unusual in 2010, where the latest web and tech trends conspire to make all of us information-news junkies of one variety or another, but in 2003 it meant going a little out of your way to keep up with things.

It was just before the “blogosphere” was invited to join cable news and before the aggregators compiled every little development, from all corners of the media machine, into a single space.

It was back before newspapers disappeared and journalism was still a stable career choice.

A time when columnists could take a leave of absence that they affectionately referred to as book leave.

Why anyone would need to take a specifically sanctioned absence from writing less than 800 words, twice weekly is beyond me — and probably most mere mortals as well.

Still, back then the only thing I wanted more than my own column was to go on book leave.

As of this month, I am on a leave of absence from my graduate program until the new year. There area a number of reasons involved and most of them beyond my influence, but I am going to refer to the whole ordeal as being on book leave.

I thought I’d frame my inaugural post with an homage to Bill Lawrence’s superb sitcom Scrubs. If you haven’t seen the show, the plot is focused through a reflective first-person narrative and each episode title employes “my” as prefix to match.

It’s a useful means of introducing myself and a narrative style I’m going to adopt on occasion.

MY THIRD REVOLUTION

I’ve had this site up and running for a few years now. This is my third attempt at keeping it updated and maintained. I never really intended it to be anything more than a formal web address but becoming quite active on Twitter throughout the past year has made it evident that I need a more formal platform for certain content and musings.

MY PLOTLESS FICTION

There’s really no underlying theme to this site, but the word “missives” does come to mind. In past, I’ve envisioned a regularly scheduled program but that’s rather unrealistic. What I do plan on featuring is a weekly missive or article with a theme, punctuated by otherwise unannounced outbursts and links at random intervals.

Of course, this does not include essays and reviews featured on the “Writing” page of this site, which I have separated because the style of writing differs significantly. That won’t have a schedule either but I will at least review one book a month.

MY SHAMELESS BORROWINGS

I don’t know if you noticed but someone put The Baffler back in print. Stop what you are doing immediately and rejoice. And when you’re finished that you should subscribe. Commodify Your Dissent (1997) is one of my favourite essay collections and I’ve always though of Thomas Frank’s writing in particular as something of a standard. The Baffler’s patient disrespect for bullshit and falsehood is a tradition worthy of emulation.

I’m also going to borrow Heather Mallick’s end-of-column “This Week” and append it to my weekly post. If you’re not familiar with Mallick, she’s one of the most eloquent journalists in Canada and has excellent taste in books with a certain penchant for recommendation to match.

The typography in the Literary Review of Canada (LRC) is really impressive — to say nothing of their writing or contributors. While this theme is already fairly close to their layout, I will make no attempt to hide further adaptations or similarities.

MY IMPLIED PASSERS-BY

I’m not sure how you found your way here but you did.

Thanks for visiting.

Feel free to comment as well — even if you disagree. And please see my “About” page for more details.