Chapter 30. CRITICAL REVIEW      Introduction   Basics   Advanced   Samples   Activities --- Basics of Critical Review --- Why?           Starting                                         Organizing                       Revising & Editing           --- Introduction This section explains the basics of writing and revising a critical review--why a critical review exists and how to start, organize, and edit it.  You may want to first see the "Introduction" before reading this page.  Be sure, before or after reading this "Basics Page," to see "Sample Papers" by students.  For more advanced information, go to "Advanced Methods."                  Why This Type of Paper?    The heart of a critical review is the answer to the question, "Should I read the text being reviewed?"  Sometimes a critical review does not need to answer even this because all its audience wants to know is, "Can I see a brief discussion of this text so I don't have to read it myself?"  A critical review is never a light-hearted, breezy, casual, or simple paper.  It is, in fact, one of the most formal and most complex types of writing you can do.  For this reason, however, it also can be very intellectually stimulating.  It asks that you understand intimately and share with others in specific, close detail what a text says, and that you also understand enough about the text's subject that you can intelligently discuss what other experts might have to say about the text, positive and negative.  In addition, you need to understand enough about the subject or about appropriate methods of presenting it that you can suggest to your audience how well or poorly the text has been assembled and delivered to its readers.  Many formal reviews--in academic and professional journals--often review several texts at once.  This allows for even greater richness, as the texts are compared and contrasted to each other. If you are just beginning to learn how to write a critical review, you may find it easiest to not worry about achieving great complexity but rather to simply learn the form first.  This probably means you will want to consider reviewing just one text at a time (or two at the most).  You also may want to keep your discussion of implications and arguments to the public sphere that you, yourself, understand, and to evaluate the text based simply on how well or poorly it seems to be researched and written for a college audience.  Whether simple or complex, critical reviews are highly useful in both public and formal versions.  Public versions of critical reviews--reviews of nonfiction educational books in newspapers and magazines--tell potential readers whether those books are worth reading.  They describe what the books are about, how different types of people may react to them, and whether the books are interesting and easy to read.  Reviews are one of the most important methods people use to decide whether to purchase books.  Formal--academic and professional--versions of critical reviews help teachers, researchers, and well trained professionals decide which books, essays, and articles to read to help them learn more in their discipline or profession.   Good books, essays, and articles can significantly change how academics and other professionals teach, build dams, experiment with plants, heal people, run businesses and learn many other new methods; most such texts find their way into the hands of professionals directly or indirectly through critical reviews.  In most professional fields and disciplines that have to do with the handling of books--publishing, bookselling, and library science--critical reviews are so important that these fields could not exist without them.  Critical reviews are one of the most important and central methods a well educated society has of processing information about new texts efficiently, intelligently, and thoroughly.   It follows, then, that someone who knows how to write a critical review knows one of the most important communication methods for processing large amounts of information in a relatively compact manner.  So important is the basic method of thinking used in critical reviews that this method of thinking even is commonly applied (in many different forms) to evaluating people (see "Reviewing a Job Candidate or Employee") and systems in business and many other fields.  Being able to write a good critical review represents a sort of summa cum laude or graduate degree in academic reading, thinking, and writing.  Even if you only learn the basics of writing such a paper in a simple manner, you will be learning a pattern of critical thinking and communication that can be useful to you in professional, academic, and even personal situations for the rest of your life. --- Return to top.              How Will You Start?    The major section of WritingforCollege.org called "Starting" offers a number of useful ways to start thinking, speaking, and writing about a subject. The advice here, which follows, is for this chapter's type of paper in particular.  Starting by Reading Generally your very first focus should be on the text of the reading (or on the other subject) you will critically review.  To start, you may find your paper easier to write if you find a text that you understand easily and thoroughly.  You should be able to understand the text well enough not only in content, but also in structure, such that you can easily see its individual points.  You also must be able to treat it very objectively, without finding it upsetting.   This major section of WritingforCollege.org has, within it, five chapters discussing how to respond to texts in five specific ways.  Because you always must start with a text, all five chapters of these chapters have these three paragraphs in common.  To see more about how to start with a text, please go to the brief summary and resource page "How to Start Your Paper by Reading."  If you are not starting with a text but rather a subject, much of the same advice still applies.  In other words, be sure that you know your subject well.  Writing Your Critical Review Once you've carefully read your reading, start writing.  You can start by freewriting, by organizing/outlining, by collecting and/or expanding upon your critical-reading notes you've already made, or simply by writing, point-by-point.  As you start, you might want to begin with the facts--the main points of the reading itself.  However, you also may start with arguments for and/or against the author's main position(s), or with implications--hidden meanings of the reading or what the reading may cause to happen.  A third way to start is to begin by evaluating how well or poorly the text is written, organized, styled, or researched.  You also can write about your feelings about the text, if doing so helps, or even about images that occurred to you as you read the reading.  If you are better acquainted with other types of argument papers or responses to readings, you might even start by using the pattern of one of those.  In a second draft, you then can fit it into one or more of the parts of your critical review and complete the other parts.  Whatever method you choose, you probably will want to get as much of your thinking on paper as you can at the beginning. The tone with which you begin should be whatever tone works for you in the beginning in order to get your thoughts on the page.  In other words, if you must have or develop a strong feeling--such as pleasure, dislike, indignation, surprise, etc.--to begin discussion in your first draft, then do so.  However, sooner or later--in the first or a later draft--the tone you need to achieve is one of calm, reasoned, fair, balanced reason.  Mild indignation or disagreement is to some extent acceptable in some courses or publications, especially if you use an ironic tone or one of regret; however, in some disciplines and publications--especially, for example, in the sciences--your tone should be of rigorous, absolutely balanced and logical analysis. You must, in other words, in tone and word choice, imply that you are being very logical.   When you start focusing on organizing--at whatever stage of writing you choose--you'll need to be sure in the very first sentence of each major type of thinking you are performing--summary, response/implications, or evaluation--that your readers understand exactly what you are doing.  This means having clear section topic sentences if you are dividing these three functions into three topic sections; if you are dividing these three main functions into multiple paragraphs, be sure that each major paragraph's topic sentence clearly indicates what kind of function you are about to perform.  Also be sure--as you build your paper--that you have plenty of quotations from the author so that the reader can see exactly how the author develops his/her thinking.  If you are assigned to do so, you may need quotations from other sources, as well, primarily to help support the points you are making.  Because you, yourself, are not a professional expert, you are depending--in a research paper--on quotations and paraphrases from the professional experts.  --- Return to top.           What Are Some Organizing Methods?    When organizing a critical review, you may want to consider three practical matters.  Be aware of (1) the typical visual/textual design, (2) the central key to organizing this type of paper, and (3) dangers to avoid.  General principles of organization are described in detail in the "Organizing" chapter.  Specific details for this type of paper are below.   The Visual Plan or Map The "Introduction" has already shown you the following organization for an evaluation:     Unique Title                         THE READING,  A SUMMARIZING OPINION, and introductory details                        (Optional Background Section) Body Section 1: Summary of the Contents Body Section 2: Public or Professional Responses, Arguments, and/or Implications (Meanings/Results) Body Section 3: Evaluation of Quality Using Criteria                        THE READING, OVERALL  EVALUATIVE CONCLUSION, and concluding details                          Bibliography Jones, A.J. Book One, et al. Smith, B.K. Book Two, et al.               Here is a more detailed view of this structure.  This view is a visual and textual plan of how a critical review generally looks when it is finished.                                           Your Own Unique Title OR, for one reviewed work only, Critical Review of "Essay"/Book*                        Introduction**           Type of paper.  Source info: Author's Name, "Essay"/Title, & author's main argument.  Brief statement(s) of the work's contents, the arguments/implications you will discuss, and your overall opinion of the work's value.  Introductory quotation/details.  [1 par.]                        Summary           Summary of the work(s) you are reviewing: (a) topic sentence, (b) summary using paraphrases (and possibly a few summarizing quotations) from your reading's text, and (c) a brief, concluding sentence or paragraph.  [2+ par.] Arguments AND/OR Implications           Discussion of public and/or professional responses, arguments, and/or implications (meanings/results): topic sentence, discussion with quotes, supporting details, & conclusion.  [2+ par.] Evaluations           Evaluation using a set of criteria: topic sentence, discussion with quotes, supporting details, & conclusion.  [2+ par.]                        Conclusion            Source (author and/or title).  Your overall evaluative conclusion.  Final quotation/details.  [1 par.]                        Works Cited/Bibliography Jones, A.J. Book One, et al. Smith, B.K. Book Two, et al. Create an alphabetized bibliography on a separate page, according to the requirements of your discipline/instructor.  Formats vary among differing disciplines.  (See the chapter in Section G. "Quoting/Paraphrasing" for more detail.)                       For an alternative--and more complex--method of organizing, see "Advanced Methods."             The Key to Building a Critical Review: Breadth and Variety The key to the overall organization of a critical review often is to provide a broad number of issues that vary widely in their perspectives.  A critical review is, after all, a type of paper highly focused on its audience: it is a review made specifically for an audience to read.  Unlike the typical academic paper that may only be read by one person, an instructor, or a typical business report that may be briefly digested and then filed, reviews are read by large numbers of people.  For this reason, you need to fairly and broadly represent the reviewed text for a wide variety of people, perspectives, and opinions.  In this respect, you must consider the various types of audience members your review will have and ask yourself, "What is it that they want to know about the text from their point of view?" Good critical reviews recognize the breadth and variety of differing audience members interest and then develop arguments/implications and evaluative criteria that are useful to that audience.  Here is a table offering just several of many possible examples of this breadth and variety:  Tables for Developing Body Sections 2-3 SECTION 2: Useful Arguments/Implications (a) Responses from opposite sides among peers (people in the same discipline or profession).  (b) Implications (meanings/results)  in related disciplines or professions, + & - (positive and negative) (c) Responses from opposite sides among the reading public.  (d) Implications (meanings/results) for the reading public, + & - (e) Responses from opposite sides among the general public. (f) Implications (meanings/results) for the general public, + & - (g) Other + & - Implications: ethical, cultural, technological, ecological, economic, etc. (h) Comparative analysis of authors' arguments (for two or more reviewed texts)        SECTION 3: Useful Evaluative Categories What is well or poorly written? What is well or poorly argued—strongly, weakly, inappropriately, uselessly? What is well or poorly researched or otherwise supported by details? What is missing in the article, self-contradictory, or biased? What do the style, tone, voice, types of detail, format, and audience appeal  indicate? What elements of logic or rhetoric are present, missing, and well or poorly used? What theory or theories can be  applied to critique the article? How well represented are problems, multiple solutions, and criteria for choosing a solution?            Dangers to Avoid as You Organize One of the dangers in writing a critical review is inexperience in or knowledge of how to argue, analyze, or evaluate a reading.  If you have not yet learned how to write an argument paper, to respond argumentatively to a text, or to evaluate a text, you might need to first learn at least one or two of these writing and thinking skills.  To learn how to argue or respond argumentatively, see the "Argument" section, especially "Writing a Dialogic Paper"; or see "Disagreeing with a Reading."  To learn how to evaluate a reading, see "Writing an Evaluation"; to analyze a reading, see "Writing an Analysis." Another danger is to try to review too many essays or books at once.  It is reasonable to review two, if you wish: in many academic and professional publications, is is normal to review two, three, or even more essays or books at one time.  If you are interested in doing this, read about multiple reviewing in this chapter's "Advanced Methods."   However, multiple reviewing requires a lot more work.  It is an additional commitment of time that is much greater than merely reading and understanding each additional text.  You also must, as you develop your drafts of your critical review, compare and contrast all the texts you are reviewing on each major argument, implication, or evaluative point you make so that your comments evenly and fully represent all the texts.  A good rule of thumb is for each text you review beyond the first, you are doubling your total work time: i.e., if reviewing one text may require ten hours of reading and drafting, two texts may require twenty, and three texts up to forty hours.  It is not often that a person will review more than two texts at a time in an undergraduate college course unless he or she is in a writing course in which everyone has been required to read and thoroughly discuss the texts, or unless she is reading the texts as part of a major project in a different course.   A third danger exists in how you handle your point of view.  On the one hand, you want to avoid focusing too much on just your own opinions, beliefs, and personal experiences.  These all can be useful and even valuable when you are presenting only your own opinion, as in a disagreeing with a reading or a thesis paper; however, in a critical review, you are supposed to try to represent to your audience a breadth and variety of ways in which the audience members may perceive the text you are reviewing.  It is good, even necessary, to offer your opinions; however they need to be part of an overall effort to offer a variety of opinions and to discuss them in a fair, complete, and balanced manner for the sake of your audience. A fourth danger occasionally exists in becoming too mechanical in your writing.  This happens sometimes when a writer is trying so hard to be fair and balanced that there seems to be little or no emotion in the writing.  You should know, first, that sometimes a mechanical tone is, in fact, acceptable: this can be so particularly in a scientific or medical review, just as it is in lab and scientific report writing.  On the other hand, in most situations, mechanical writing is not a good end product.  There are several ways to avoid it.  Sometimes you can correct the problem using a simple editing technique: check your sentence lengths and use of transitions.  If your sentences tend to be the same length, vary them: make some short, some medium in length, and others long.  If key sentences tend not to have transition words and phrases connecting them to each other, add more.  See "Sentence Lengths" and "Transitions" for more on these stylistic devices. Another revision technique is to first choose a tone or voice you would like to convey: e.g., warmth, mild excitement, academic formality, etc.  Then go back over what you have written, sentence by sentence, and speak the sentences aloud.  As you speak, ask yourself, "How could I say this sentence aloud to someone to convey the tone of voice I would want them to hear?  Often there are rhythms and word choices in our sentences that change as our tone of voice changes.  By making the changes in writing, you can affect how your audience members will "hear" your sentences in their own heads as they read. ----- As you complete your later drafts, look carefully at the visual map above and the sample papers in this chapter.  Rearrange the order of your body sections and of your paragraphs as needed.  Consider your use of major organizing devices: for example, have you placed the correct key sentences in your introduction and conclusion, and have you developed a subtitle and topic sentence at the beginning of each major body section?   Asterisks *, **, and *** for the organizational plan or map above (advice given in most chapters): *In most academic disciplines, the title is typed simply: no quotation marks, underlining, or bold marking.  It is centered, and the font size and style are those used in the rest of the paper--normally a 12-point font in a style such as Times New Roman, Garamond, or CG Times.  In a professional situation, you may use academic style or whatever is commonly acceptable in your workplace. ** In some disciplines, the "Introduction" subtitle may be optional or even forbidden.  (Most social sciences and psychology papers, for example, should not have an "Introduction" subtitle.)  ***Some instructors--and some types of papers or disciplines--require a short summary (see) of a text  before you begin responding to it.  Ask your instructor.  Such a summary generally should have no quotations within it and should be fair and balanced (even if the text is not).          ***Some instructors may allow--or even, occasionally, prefer--your paper to be completely free of subtitles.  (Some literature, history, and philosophy instructors, for example, consider subtitles inappropriate.)  If you use no subtitles at all, consider using an extra space break at the beginning of each body section and/or an especially strong, clear topic sentence.  In addition, some instructors may prefer you to have a series of more than four body sections.  If so, pay attention especially to the paper's flow by using good transitions. For more about organizing body sections, topic sentences, and subtitles in general, please go to "Organizing College Papers."  For more about organizing paragraphs, go to the "Paragraphing" chapter. --- Return to top.        Are There Any Final Revising and Editing Needs?    In revising a critical review, the focus techniques with which you started in the Introduction to this chapter also can help you finish your paper:     FOUR FOCUSES FOR REVISING: Subject, Drafts, Style, & Authenticity SUBJECT: In a critical review, this means avoiding standing at a podium and delivering your own speech in which the subject is just a beginning point.  Be sure to pay attention to how the readers want to pay attention to the subject.  Be sure to clearly explain quotations and, if necessary, background information that helps explain new or complex ideas.  Consider, too, how your audience may perceive the text you are reviewing as a set of solutions to a problem, and whether your audience will consider the problem and its solutions well represented by the reading.   Be sure, in addition, to introduce, explain, or connect each quotation at least briefly (see the "Quoting & Paraphrasing" chapter in the "Researching" section) to the content of your discussion.  Have you also considered what kind of problem the author of your text presents and how each theory or viewpoint represents some kind of solution?  Can you help your readers perceive it in this way?   FIRST & SECOND DRAFTS: Have you used all of the needed steps to write and revise your drafts? Free-write: after you have added quotations, try reading your paper aloud to see if it is choppy or has missing ideas.  If either is the case, trying rewriting the choppy parts freely, without copying what you've already written, or freewriting new paragraphs to complete your missing ideas. (To help cure choppy sentences, see "Using Mixed-Length Sentences" in "Editing.")  For general freewriting, see "How to Start First Drafts.")   Gather details: do you have details--quotations, paraphrases, facts, figures, and/or stories--to help prove or exemplify your points?  If you are using several interpretations, arguments, or other viewpoints, can your audience picture the type of people who exemplify them?  Can you provide quotations from your theory or viewpoint sources: e.g., a textbook, encyclopedia article, or instructor for theories, or a written source or interview (with quotations from it) for these different types of positions or points of view?   Write for your audience: is your audience an instructor, your professional coordinator, or your own peers?  Have you visualized your audience?  Have you read your paper aloud as if reading to this audience?  Have you tried reading your paper aloud to a friend or family member, pretending he or she is your audience?  Will each step of your paper, idea by idea, sound logical, unbiased, and interesting to your audience?  At what points might your audience have trouble understanding what the various viewpoints--yours and others--mean, or how they apply to your text?   Organize: have you kept your introduction, conclusion, and/or a beginning summary reasonably short, moving excess discussion in them to body sections?  Do you need to reorganize the body sections for the greatest degree of logic, clarity, and audience interest (placing more interesting information first and last)?  Does your paper proceed in each topic section using the same pattern of application (i.e., is each topic section's presentation organized like the other topic sections, in a parallel pattern, step by step)? Research: iF you need to support your points and/or others' points with research, do you have a sufficient number of high-quality sources?  Have you fully integrated them with your paper by adding quotations and/or paraphrases from them?  If you are using non-print sources such as interviews, videos, or television, will they be considered appropriate and representative (well representing a viewpoint or theory) by your audience?  If you are using online sources, have you checked them carefully to verify their quality and accuracy (see "Evaluating Web Sites" in OnlineGrammar.org)? STYLE & TONE: Have you converted all parts of your writing to the appropriate style and tone?  Critical reviews vary in tone, according to the audience, discipline, and place of publication.  In general, though, unless your instructor suggests otherwise, you should have an academic writing style, with paragraphs and sentences of some complexity (but still with sufficient clarity and logic for your audience to easily understand them).  Paragraphs should be medium to long, with a few short ones for variety.  Your tone or voice should be one of balance, fairness, and confidence in your statements.   AUTHENTICITY: Have you tried to go to the heart of the matter you are discussing?  Do you believe that you have represented each viewpoint or theory and the text to which you are applying them accurately and fairly?  If not, what do you need to do to remedy the problem?  Have you written respectfully to your audience?  Are your supporting details sufficient and accurate enough that your audience will believe in the authenticity of your contents?                                              Final Advice Given in Most Chapters For specific, line-by-line editing, your paper needs proper development of both your particular points that you are making and points or places in the text to which you are referring.  In other words, you need to explain not only yourself, but also your sources/readings.  Your sources/readings must be absolutely clear to your reader in a fair, balanced, logical way.  You must, therefore, not just use quotations and paraphrases.  You also explain them.  (See the "Quoting & Paraphrasing" chapter for how to do this.)  Remember that the typical quotation should, in many disciplines, have a statement of a source--a name or title--at its beginning; and, after it, there should be a page number (if the source is printed).  The typical paraphrase should have a source--a name or title--either before or after it, along with a page number (if any) afterwards.  In addition, quotations, paraphrases, and stories should not just be tossed into your paper: rather, they should be introduced by having a statement before and/or after each of its connection to what you are saying.  In most papers, you should use the third-person pronoun: "he," "she," "it," and "they."  You should not use "you" unless you are giving directions, or writing a diary or personal reflection, or a less formal magazine or newsletter article or other specific advice (as in this chapter).  In most formal writing situations, instructors and supervisors also often dislike the use "I" at any time (unless you are referring to yourself in a story example).  However, some forms of academic and professional writing--especially if a specific instructor or supervisor allows it--are starting to allow the use of the "I" pronoun.  If in doubt, ask your instructor or supervisor. Paragraphing in most academic papers follows some relatively standard guidelines.  You are working with a lot of information when you write a formal paper.  For this reason, clear, consistent paragraphing becomes even more important.  Your paragraphs should help you logically divide your body sections into smaller sub-parts, ideas, or sub-ideas--just for the sake of clarity and ease of reading, if for no other reason.  Also, generally, for a short- to medium-length paper, you should have one paragraph each for your introduction, conclusion, and--if you have it--your summary.  You should, as a matter of habit, have at least two or three paragraphs per page in your final draft.  On the other hand, be careful not to have too many paragraphs per page.  If you have a lot of short, choppy paragraphs, combine them.  The goal, graphically speaking, is to provide your audience with a variety of paragraph lengths--an occasional short one for emphasis or change of pace added to a mix of varying medium and long paragraphs.  The goal in terms of content is to make your ideas flow so well that your audience can easily keep them clear and separate without ever even noticing your paragraphing (or, for that matter, any other mechanical aspect of your paper).  For more advice, go to the "Paragraphing" chapter.   Several other common, useful strategies of efficient, thorough editing are in the several chapters of the "Revising and Editing" section.  Some of these strategies also are summarized in the following very-brief web page:   Very Brief Review of How to Edit Your Final Draft. Good luck with your writing of this type of paper.  For more advanced and/or interesting information on this type of paper, please see the "Advanced" section of the chapter. --- Return to top.

Research Writing

---
 Related Links in
OnlineGrammar.org: