1. The Review
For this assignment, you will be required to write a scholarly
review of Cormac
McCarthy’s The Road. In this review, you will be required to
interpret The Road within a
larger conversation (based on the themes you have been
developing throughout the past
few weeks). Your review will need to include supplemental
information from two of our
previous texts.
750 Word Minimum. Posted to your Class Blog. Legible font,
images, sound, etc. strongly
recommended.
Why Write and How to Write a Review:
The purpose of a scholarly review is to summarize, analyze,
evaluate, and place within a
field of scholarship whatever is being reviewed. Often, the
audience of the scholarly
review has some familiarity with the text (book, movie, TV
show, etc) that is being
reviewed. Even if this is not the case, the audience will have
some background and/or
interest in the discipline and the subject. Consequently, the
scholarly review is less a
summary and more a critical evaluation or commentary.
The type of review that you will engage in is often referred to
as a critique, a critical

2. analysis, or a critical review. Whatever it’s called, the scholarly
review tells an educated
audience of the significance of a text or film within the context
of a discipline, field of
study, or particular subject or course.
Looking at reviews published in various magazines,
newspapers, and scholarly journals
will give you a good idea of the differing audiences and forms
of review. You can find
current book/movie reviews using the same library tools that
you use to find any other
type of academic source. Using the advanced search option,
choose “book review” as
your preferred document type to limit your search to only
reviews.
What a Review is Not
• A review is not a research paper. Some students, instead of
writing about a book or
a film when they are asked to write a review, write a research
paper on the subject
of the book or film.
• A review is not a summary. While it is important to summarize
the contents and
significance of whatever you review, you are not merely
informing your audience
of the basic plot or events. Instead, you are writing towards a
different audience
that will be interested in a critical evaluation, analysis, and/or
commentary on the
material.

3. • A review is not an “off-the-cuff,” personal response. Writing a
review will involve
communicating a personal view on the material, but flippant
statements that don’t
express your understanding of what you have read do not further
the conversation.
Comments like: “I thought the book was interesting” or “The
book was boring”
are not sufficient. Instead, you should strive to explain why the
book was
interesting (not only for yourself, but potentially for others).
Did the text reveal
some new data/thoughts? In order to be effective, a reviewer
must be fair and
accurate. You will need to work hard to express the underlying
reasons for your
first reactions.
• A review is not a string of quotations. Use quotations
sparingly. On another note,
avoid using quotations from other reviews; you will need to be
writing your own
review, not compiling other reviewers’ opinions.
As with all writing, there is more than one way to proceed. You
will, however, need to
accomplish certain things for this review:
1) Read critically. Being critical does not mean criticizing or
reading with a “bad
attitude.” Reading critically means asking questions and

4. formulating well-
informed answers. Critical readers do not reject a text or take a
negative approach
to it because they think something is wrong or bad; a critical
reader inquires about
the text, the author, themselves, and the context surrounding all
three. As you
read critically, consider the following:
o What issues or themes are apparent throughout the text?
o What does the author ignore/leave out?
o Does this text contribute to a larger societal conversation?
How? What is
the outcome? What might a reader take away from the text in
regards to
their daily lives?
These questions will help you, the reviewer, to understand a
text on its own terms
(analyze it); bring your own knowledge to inform the text
(respond to it); critique
the text considering validity, truth, slant (evaluate it); and place
the text in context
(ongoing conversation).
2) Seeing the text. It is extremely important to work towards
seeing a clear and
accurate picture of the text. Here are some questions that will
help you analyze
the text:
o What is the text about? What of the content should be
described in this
review?

5. o What is the thesis, main theme, or main point of the text?
(Sometimes
these will not be explicitly stated by a text).
o What major claims or conclusions does the author make (if
they make any
at all)? What issue does the text illuminate? What attitude to
life does it
present?
o What is the structure of the text? How does the author
implement this
structure to build on their argument?
o What kind of language, descriptions, or sections help alert
you to the
themes and significance of the text?
o Is there any claim for which the evidence presented is
insufficient or slight?
Do any of the conclusions rest on evidence that may be
uncommon?
Which sections of the text reflect on our own “real-life” world?
Which
don’t? Why? And if so, what is the effect?
o How is the argument in the text developed? How do the claims
relate?
How does the text proceed? What does the conclusion reveal
when
compared to the beginning?
3) Considering context. Context is the conversation and ideas
that surround a

6. particular text. The context may include: widely-acclaimed
scholarship, a
particular personal motive for writing (to document an injustice
or ingratiate
myself with a leading expert), or, perhaps, the context is simply
contemporary
society or today’s headlines. A reviewer needs to examine the
text’s context in
order to arrive at a fair understanding and evaluation of its
contents and
importance.
Here are some useful quotations:
o What are the connections between this text and others on
similar subjects?
How does it relate to my course? To scholarship? To the
discipline?
o What is the scholarly significance of this text? What
contributions does it
make?
o What is missing from the text? Does it omit or ignore the
experiences of
certain groups?
o What other perspectives or conclusions are possible?
Structural Guidelines
The best order is the order that allows you to express your ideas
in a logical and coherent
manner (consider your audience). However, there are some
general structural guidelines
that you will want to follow when writing a review, especially if
you are unfamiliar with
this genre of writing. Remember, these are guidelines, not a

7. rigid formula. You will find,
as you read more and more reviews, that many of them do not
always follow the structure
outlined here. (But you will notice that most reviews do include
a majority of the
information).
I. Introduction: Do exactly what you would do if you were
standing in front of an
audience: introduce what you will review, the author, and the
points you
intend to make about this work.
a. provide relevant bibliographic information
b. give the reader a clear idea of the nature, scope, and
significance of the
work
c. indicate your evaluation of the work in a clear 1-2 sentence
thesis statement
d. Provide background information to help your readers
understand the
importance of the work or the reasons for your appraisal. Some
examples are:
i. explain why the issue examined is of interest (to your
audience)
ii. tell what scholarship says about this subject
iii. describe the author’s perspective, methodology, purpose
iv. give information concerning the circumstances under which
the
text was created
II. Summary: Summarize the contents very briefly (Tip: Keep it
short):

8. a. focus on the main points and purposes of the work that are
relevant to
your argument
b. focus also on the ideas, themes, or arguments that you will
evaluate or
discuss later
III. Analysis/Evaluation: Analyze and explain the significance
of the main points
of the work. Evaluate the work, answering questions such as the
following:
a. does the work do what its author claimed it would?
b. leaving out your own points of agreement or disagreement, is
the work
valid and accurate?
c. what are your reasons for agreeing, disagreeing, liking,
disliking, believing,
disbelieving?
IV. Conclusion/Recommendation: Give your overall assessment
of the work.
Reiterate your main points. Explain the larger significance of
your assessment.